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]

Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:33:59 +1030
From:   "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@...id.au>
To:     "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "Eddie James" <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Alistair Popple" <alistair@...ple.id.au>,
        linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fsi: Add regmap and refactor sbefifo



On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, at 04:30, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

+1