linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] fsi: Add regmap and refactor sbefifo

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: <Y07pqhpm/1hzx9LR@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 19:00:10 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     joel@....id.au, jk@...abs.org, alistair@...ple.id.au,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fsi: Add regmap and refactor sbefifo

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 09:02:33AM -0500, Eddie James wrote:
> On 10/17/22 12:37, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Is there any great reason to provide support in the regmap core for this
> > rather than just implementing in drivers/fsi?  AFAICT this is just
> > ending up as an implementation detail of shared code in drivers/fsi and
> > won't have any external users?

> One reason is to have a common interface with the new FSI regmap. That way
> abstracting out the bus transfer is trivial in the new SBEFIFO driver,
> assuming the SBEFIFO driver should switch to use the FSI regmap.

> But you are correct, I doubt anyone else will use this. I suppose SBEFIFO
> may as well not use the regmap and just use some callbacks for whichever bus
> transfer...

I'm not saying don't use regmap, I'm saying why not just do this in the
driver - you can just as easily set the reg_read() and reg_write()
callbacks in an individual driver without needing to create a new regmap
bus type for just that one driver to use.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)