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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fc33c4ed-32e5-46cc-87d6-921f2e58b4ff@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:19:23 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>,
 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

On 02/12/2024 05:00, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
> 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."

Come with one flag or enum, if needed, covering all your cases like this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof