linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindindgs: i2c: qcom,i2c-geni: Document shared flag

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: <a8b1ccd2-c37b-4a6f-b592-caf1a53be02c@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:30:29 +0530
From: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        <andersson@...nel.org>, <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <agross@...nel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <vkoul@...nel.org>, <linux@...blig.org>,
        <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, <Frank.Li@....com>,
        <konradybcio@...nel.org>, <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>
CC: <quic_vdadhani@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindindgs: i2c: qcom,i2c-geni: Document shared
 flag

Hi Krzysztof,

On 11/29/2024 8:44 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/11/2024 15:43, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
>> Adds qcom,shared-se flag usage. Use this flag when I2C serial controller
>> needs to be shared in multiprocessor system(APPS,Modem,ADSP) environment.
>>
>> SE(Serial Engine HW controller acting as protocol master controller) is an
>> I2C controller. Basically a programmable SERDES(serializer/deserializer)
>> coupled with data DMA entity, capable in handling a bus protocol, and data
>> moves to/from system memory.
>>
>> Two clients from different processors can share an I2C controller for same
>> slave device OR their owned slave devices. Assume I2C Slave EEPROM device
>> connected with I2C controller. Each client from ADSP SS and APPS Linux SS
>> can perform i2c transactions.
>>
>> Transfer gets serialized by Lock TRE + DMA xfer + Unlock TRE at HW level.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-geni-qcom.yaml       | 8 ++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-geni-qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-geni-qcom.yaml
>> index 9f66a3bb1f80..88682a333399 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-geni-qcom.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-geni-qcom.yaml
>> @@ -60,6 +60,14 @@ properties:
>>     power-domains:
>>       maxItems: 1
>>   
>> +  qcom,shared-se:
>> +    description: True if I2C controller is shared between two or more system processors.
>> +        SE(Serial Engine HW controller working as protocol master controller) is an
>> +        I2C controller. Basically, a programmable SERDES(serializer/deserializer)
>> +        coupled with data DMA entity, capable in handling a bus protocol, and data
>> +        moves to/from system memory.
> I replied why I NAK it. You did not really address my concerns, but
> replied with some generic statement. After that generic statement you
> gave me exactly 0 seconds to react and you sent v5.
> 
Sorry for 0 seconds, i thought of addressing comment and uploading it 
new patch as i wanted to explain SE. whatever i have added for SE 
explanation is in qualcomm hardware programming guide document.
> Really 0 seconds to respond to your comment, while you give yourself
> days to respond to my comments.
> 
> This is not how it works.
> 
Sure, let me first conclude here what exactly should be done.
> NAK
> 
> Implement previous feedback. Don't send any new versions before you
> understand what you have to do and get some agreement with reviewers.
> 
Sure, this is definitely a good way. what did i do for previous comment ?
I have opened SE and expanded, explained.

which statement or explanation should i rephrase ? Is it description 
statement from this yaml file ? Could you please suggested better word 
instead of shared-se if this flag name is not suitable ?

I could not get this ask -
"There are few of such flags already and there are some patches adding 
it in different flavors."

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof