linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: imx_rproc: enlarge IMX7D_RPROC_MEM

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]

Message-ID: <20210325230042.GB1982573@xps15>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:00:42 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To:     "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
Cc:     ohad@...ery.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        o.rempel@...gutronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org,
        s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
        linux-imx@....com, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: imx_rproc: enlarge IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX

Hi Peng,

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 06:47:07PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> 
> 8 is not enough when we need more, so enlarge IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX to 32,
> and also rename it to IMX_RPROC_MEM_MAX which make more sense.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 6d3207ccbaef..24275429a7cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
>  					 | IMX6SX_SW_M4C_NON_SCLR_RST \
>  					 | IMX6SX_SW_M4C_RST)
>  
> -#define IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX		8
> +#define IMX_RPROC_MEM_MAX		32

The size of structure imx_rproc_att_imx7d and imx_rproc_att_imx6sx have
not changed nor has there been an addition of new imx_rproc_att that would
justify the change.

It seems to me you are working on something internally and this patch is in
preparation for that.  If that is the case then please resubmit this patch with
the rest of the code.

Thanks,
Mathieu 

>  
>  /**
>   * struct imx_rproc_mem - slim internal memory structure
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ struct imx_rproc {
>  	struct regmap			*regmap;
>  	struct rproc			*rproc;
>  	const struct imx_rproc_dcfg	*dcfg;
> -	struct imx_rproc_mem		mem[IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX];
> +	struct imx_rproc_mem		mem[IMX_RPROC_MEM_MAX];
>  	struct clk			*clk;
>  	struct mbox_client		cl;
>  	struct mbox_chan		*tx_ch;
> @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static void *imx_rproc_da_to_va(struct rproc *rproc, u64 da, size_t len, bool *i
>  	if (imx_rproc_da_to_sys(priv, da, len, &sys))
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX; i++) {
> +	for (i = 0; i < IMX_RPROC_MEM_MAX; i++) {
>  		if (sys >= priv->mem[i].sys_addr && sys + len <
>  		    priv->mem[i].sys_addr +  priv->mem[i].size) {
>  			unsigned int offset = sys - priv->mem[i].sys_addr;
> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ static int imx_rproc_addr_init(struct imx_rproc *priv,
>  		if (!(att->flags & ATT_OWN))
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (b >= IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX)
> +		if (b >= IMX_RPROC_MEM_MAX)
>  			break;
>  
>  		priv->mem[b].cpu_addr = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev,
> @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ static int imx_rproc_addr_init(struct imx_rproc *priv,
>  			return err;
>  		}
>  
> -		if (b >= IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX)
> +		if (b >= IMX_RPROC_MEM_MAX)
>  			break;
>  
>  		/* Not use resource version, because we might share region */
> -- 
> 2.30.0
>