linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mailbox: mediatek: add support for adsp mailbox controller

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:23:48 +0800
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...gle.com>
To:     "allen-kh.cheng" <allen-kh.cheng@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "cujomalainey@...gle.com" <cujomalainey@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group 
        <Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "sound-open-firmware@...a-project.org" 
        <sound-open-firmware@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mailbox: mediatek: add support for adsp mailbox
 controller

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 09:51:27AM +0800, allen-kh.cheng wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:25 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:45:13PM +0800, allen-kh.cheng wrote:
> > > > > +static int mtk_adsp_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan,
> > > void
> > > > > *data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +  struct adsp_mbox_ch_info *ch_info = chan->con_priv;
> > > > > +  void __iomem *reg = ch_info->va_reg;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +  spin_lock(&ch_info->lock);
> > > > > +  writel(ch_info->ipc_op_val, reg + MTK_ADSP_MBOX_IN_CMD);
> > > > > +  spin_unlock(&ch_info->lock);
> > 
> > >
> > > Why does it need the lock?
> > >
> > > Is the write to MTK_ADSP_MBOX_IN_CMD a synchronous operation?
> > > - If yes, I failed to understand why does it need the lock.  Every
> > > calls to mtk_adsp_mbox_send_data() should wait for the data
> > transfer
> > > completion.
> > > - If no, I also failed to understand
> > why.  mtk_adsp_mbox_send_data()
> > > has no way to be aware of the transfer completion.  Would expect a
> > > loop for checking the completion for the case.
> > >
> >  
> 
> In ADSP MBOX IPC flow,
>  
> Host would call mbox send data when the shared data transfer completed.
>  
> (mtk_adsp_mbox_send_data will notice client using MTK_ADSP_MBOX_IN_CMD)
>  
> It’s more like a signal.
>  
> In general case,
>  
> There may be some hosts use the same mbox channel.
>  
> I think it’s better using lock to protect access to
> MTK_ADSP_MBOX_IN_CMD registers

I still failed to understand.  What if 2 hosts notify the same client by writing MTK_ADSP_MBOX_IN_CMD at the same time?