Re: [PATCH 0/2] crypto: add new driver for Marvell CESA

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:40:43PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> On 17/04/2015 16:32, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:19:22PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> Hi Gregory,
> >>
> >> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:01:01 +0200
> >> Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Boris,
> >>>
> >>> On 17/04/2015 10:39, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:33:56 +0200
> >>>> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Jason,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:11:46 +0000
> >>>>> Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'd appreciate if we'd look into it.  I understand from on-list and
> >>>>>>>> off-list discussion that the rewrite was unavoidable.  So I'm willing to
> >>>>>>>> concede that.  Giving people time to migrate from old to new while still
> >>>>>>>> being able to update for other security fixes seems reasonable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jason, what do you think of the approach above? 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I say keep it simple.  We shouldn't use the DT changes to trigger one
> >>>>>> vice the other.  We need to be able to build both, but only load one at
> >>>>>> a time.  If that's anything other than simple to do, then we make it a
> >>>>>> Kconfig binary choice and move on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually I was planning to handle it with a Kconfig dependency rule
> >>>>> (NEW_DRIVER depends on !OLD_DRIVER and OLD_DRIVER depends
> >>>>> on !NEW_DRIVER).
> >>>>> I don't know how to make it a runtime check without adding new
> >>>>> compatible strings for the kirkwood, dove and orion platforms, and I'm
> >>>>> sure sure this is a good idea.
> >>>>   ^ not
> >>>>
> >>>>> Do you have any ideas ?
> >>>
> >>> You use devm_ioremap_resource() in the new driver, so if the old one
> >>> is already loaded the memory region will be already hold and the new
> >>> driver will simply fail during the probe. So for this part it is OK.
> >>
> >> I like the idea :-).
> > 
> > Not really, how do you know which device is going to be probed? For
> > that matter, it's pretty much random, and you have no control over it.
> > 
> > Why not just have a choice option, and select which one you want to
> > enable?
> 
> Because you can't prevent an user to build a module, then modifying the
> configuration and building the other module.

Well, actually, you don't even know if it's going to be a module. You
might very well have both drivers compiled statically in the kernel
image, and this is where the trouble begins.

> So even if there is a choice at build time, and I think that it is
> something expected for the v2, we still need preventing having the
> both drivers trying accessing the same hardware in the same time.

Of course, but this is already there, and doesn't really address the
same issue.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature