linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/14] mailbox: pcc: Always map the shared memory communication address

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: <20250305113159.hi6lelre2sphigz4@bogus>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:59 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Adam Young <admiyo@...amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] mailbox: pcc: Always map the shared memory
 communication address

On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:54:39PM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
> 
> 在 2025/3/3 18:51, Sudeep Holla 写道:
> > Currently the shared memory communication address was mapped by the
> > mailbox client drivers leading to all sorts of inconsistencies.
> > 
> > It also has resulted in the inconsistent attributes used while mapping
> > the shared memory regions.
> > 
> > In order to remove/eliminate any issues, let us ensures the shared
> > memory address is always mapped and unmapped when the PCC channels are
> > requested and release.
> > 
> > We need to map them as the ACPI PCCT associates these shared memory
> > with each channel subspace and may need use the headers in those
> > memory to manage the transport.
> > 
> > Since there are no users of pcc_chan_ioremap() and also it is mapped
> > by default, we can stop exporting it and make it static function.
> 
> If pcc_chan_ioremap is static function, I think we can delete this function
> which just has one line if put this to pcc_mbox_request_channel().
> 

Makes sense, didn't notice while I was cleaning other things around it.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep