linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] mmc: sdhci-cadence: Add Pensando Elba SoC support

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:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:38:31 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Brad Larson <brad@...sando.io>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        David Clear <dac2@...sando.io>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] mmc: sdhci-cadence: Add Pensando Elba SoC support

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:06 PM Brad Larson <brad@...sando.io> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:13 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > What is the relationship between cadence and pensando elba?
>
> Pensando licensed the cadence controller, its 100% cadence IP.  The
> integration issue we ran into was with the accessors where we have the
> workaround.  The initial patch added a separate Elba driver file but
> the feedback was the Elba support didn't justify doing that and to add
> to sdhci-cacence.c.

I looked back at the earlier reviews now, I think the main problem with
versions 1 and 2 was that it had the abstraction the wrong way around,
so you added the complexity of having multiple files, without the benefits.

I still think that the cleanest approach would be to have it the way I
suggested in my reply to v1, with an elba specific platform driver
that calls into the generic cadence code, but the generic code knowing
nothing about the front-end.

Then again, it sounds like there was already an agreement about
the approach you took here, so let's stay with that and hope we don't
get any other chips with the same IP block in the future.

         Arnd