linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] Samsung Trinity NPU device driver

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: <CAFCwf13uLM3kr20dBZV3u3xLwwMXdt=7p7y9HhR+ocknsz=cLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:24:03 +0300
From:   Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiho Chu <jiho.chu@...sung.com>,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yelin Jeong <yelini.jeong@...sung.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Samsung Trinity NPU device driver

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:51 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On 26/07/2022 04:09, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> Why isn't this submitted to soc/ subsystem ?
> > >> Don't you think that would be more appropriate, given that this IP is
> > >> integrated into application processors ?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Oded
> > >
> > > This series (Trinity-V2.3, V2.4, A1, ..) is being integrated to multiple SoCs,
> > > not limited to Samsung-designed chips (e.g., Exynos).
> > > It's a bit weird to have them in /drivers/soc/samsung.
> > >
> > > CC: Krzysztof and Alim (Samsung-SoC maintainers)
> >
> > If it is not related to Samsung SoCs (or other designs by Samsung
> > Foundry), then it should not go to drivers/soc. Based on cover letter,
> > it looks this is the case.
>
> Agreed, and I also don't want to add any drivers with a user interface
> to drivers/soc/. The things we have in there mainly fall into two categories:
>
>  - soc_device drivers for identifying the SoC itself from userspace or
>    another driver
>
>  - drivers that provide exported symbols to other kernel drivers for things
>    that do not have a proper subsystem abstraction (yet).
>
> This driver clearly does not fall into those categories. As long as there
> is no subsystem for NPUs, the only sensible options are drivers/gpu
> and drivers/misc/.
>
>      Arnd

Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't sure what the criteria for
getting into drivers/soc is,
but now it is clear.

Oded