linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] dt-bindings: dma: qcom,bam: Add bam pipe lock

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: <bf49738a-6979-41f2-a8d3-e36ac634102f@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 11:07:59 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>, vkoul@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org, thara.gopinath@...il.com,
 herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net, gustavoars@...nel.org,
 u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, kees@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Cc: quic_srichara@...cinc.com, quic_varada@...cinc.com,
 quic_utiwari@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] dt-bindings: dma: qcom,bam: Add bam pipe lock

On 22/08/2024 13:45, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/22/2024 11:57 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/08/2024 18:34, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/17/2024 2:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 15/08/2024 10:57, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
>>>>> BAM having pipe locking mechanism. The Lock and Un-Lock bit
>>>>> should be set on CMD descriptor only. Upon encountering a
>>>>> descriptor with Lock bit set, the BAM will lock all other
>>>>> pipes not related to the current pipe group, and keep
>>>>> handling the current pipe only until it sees the Un-Lock
>>>>> set.
>>>>
>>>> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
>>>> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
>>>     Ok , will update in next patch.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Change in [v2]
>>>>>
>>>>> * Added initial support for dt-binding
>>>>>
>>>>> Change in [v1]
>>>>>
>>>>> * This patch was not included in [v1]
>>>>>
>>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml
>>>>> index 3ad0d9b1fbc5..91cc2942aa62 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml
>>>>> @@ -77,6 +77,12 @@ properties:
>>>>>          Indicates that the bam is powered up by a remote processor but must be
>>>>>          initialized by the local processor.
>>>>>    
>>>>> +  qcom,bam_pipe_lock:
>>>>
>>>> Please follow DTS coding style.
>>>     Ok
>>>>
>>>>> +    type: boolean
>>>>> +    description:
>>>>> +      Indicates that the bam pipe needs locking or not based on client driver
>>>>> +      sending the LOCK or UNLOK bit set on command descriptor.
>>>>
>>>> You described the desired Linux feature or behavior, not the actual
>>>> hardware. The bindings are about the latter, so instead you need to
>>>> rephrase the property and its description to match actual hardware
>>>> capabilities/features/configuration etc.
>>>     Ok, will update in next patch.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>>      reg:
>>>>>        maxItems: 1
>>>>>    
>>>>> @@ -92,6 +98,8 @@ anyOf:
>>>>>          - qcom,powered-remotely
>>>>>      - required:
>>>>>          - qcom,controlled-remotely
>>>>> +  - required:
>>>>> +      - qcom,bam_pipe_lock
>>>>
>>>> Why is it here? What do you want to achieve?
>>>     This property added to achieve locking/unlocking
>>>     of BAM pipe groups for mutual exclusion of resources
>>>     that can be used across multiple EE's
>>
>> This explains me nothing. I am questioning the anyOf block. Why this is
>> the fourth method of controlling BAM? Anyway, if it is, then explain
>> this in commit msg.
>    This is the BAM property for locking/unlocking the BAM pipes.That's
>    why I kept in anyOf block.

You keep repeating the same. It's like poking me with the same comment
till I agree. I am done with this.

NAK. Provide proper rationale.

Best regards,
Krzysztof