linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:07:19 +0000
From:   Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
CC:     "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transport

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transport
> 
> On 3/5/20 8:06 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 11:25:35AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this may fix the issue. However I would like to know if we need
> >>> to support multiple channels/shared memory simultaneously. It is
> >>> fair requirement and may need some work which should be fine.
> >>
> >> Do you have any suggestions? Currently I have not worked out an good
> >> solution.
> >>
> >
> > TBH, I haven't given it a much thought. I would like to know if people
> > are happy with just one SMC channel for SCMI or do they need more ?
> > If they need it, we can try to solve it. Otherwise, what you have will
> > suffice IMO.
> 
> On our platforms we have one channel/shared memory area/mailbox
> instance for all standard SCMI protocols, and we have a separate
> channel/shared memory area/mailbox driver instance for a proprietary one.
> They happen to have difference throughput requirements, hence the split.
> 
> If I read Peng's submission correctly, it seems to me that the usage model
> described before is still fine.

Thanks. 

Sudeep,

Then should I repost with the global mutex added?

Thanks,
Peng.


> --
> Florian