linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] dt-bindings: dmaengine: bam

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: <YW1Mgt8aTFpIKfpJ@gerhold.net>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:29:45 +0200
From:   Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
        Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@...ksander.es>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] dt-bindings: dmaengine: bam_dma: Add
 "powered remotely" mode

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47:06AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 11-10-21, 16:17, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > In some configurations, the BAM DMA controller is set up by a remote
> > processor and the local processor can simply start making use of it
> > without setting up the BAM. This is already supported using the
> > "qcom,controlled-remotely" property.
> > 
> > However, for some reason another possible configuration is that the
> > remote processor is responsible for powering up the BAM, but we are
> > still responsible for initializing it (e.g. resetting it etc). Add
> > a "qcom,powered-remotely" property to describe that configuration.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
> > ---
> > Changes since RFC:
> >   - Rename qcom,remote-power-collapse -> qcom,powered-remotely
> >     for consistency with "qcom,controlled-remotely"
> > 
> > NOTE: This is *not* a compile-time requirement for the BAM-DMUX driver
> >       so this could also go through the dmaengine tree.
> 
> Can we split that this to dmaengine & net series if there is not
> dependency on the two... I think I skipped rev1 when I saw net-next
> 

Sure, I have now sent a v3 for the dmaengine changes without the
BAM-DMUX driver.

The original reason for having them in one series was to better see how
the dmaengine changes are used together with the design of the BAM-DMUX
driver. I discussed some alternative approaches in the original RFC
which only made sense in combination with the BAM-DMUX driver:
https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/20210719145317.79692-3-stephan@gerhold.net/

Thanks!
Stephan