Re: [PATCH 3/6] crypto: ccp: Move some PSP mailbox bit definitions into common header

[Tom Lendacky]

On 2/14/23 16:05, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> [Public]
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Dąbroś <jsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 03:04
> > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Grzegorz Bernacki <gjb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thomas, Rijo-john <Rijo-
> > john.Thomas@xxxxxxx>; Lendacky, Thomas
> > <Thomas.Lendacky@xxxxxxx>; herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Allen, John
> > <John.Allen@xxxxxxx>; Singh, Brijesh <Brijesh.Singh@xxxxxxx>; Jarkko
> > Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David S. Miller
> > <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] crypto: ccp: Move some PSP mailbox bit definitions
> > into common header
> >
> > (...)
> > > @@ -99,7 +93,7 @@ static int psp_check_mbox_recovery(struct psp_mbox
> > __iomem *mbox)
> > >          tmp = readl(&mbox->cmd_fields);
> > >
> > > -       return FIELD_GET(PSP_MBOX_FIELDS_RECOVERY, tmp);
> > > +       return FIELD_GET(PSP_CMDRESP_RECOVERY, tmp);
> > >   }
> > >
> > >   static int psp_wait_cmd(struct psp_mbox __iomem *mbox)
> > > @@ -107,7 +101,7 @@ static int psp_wait_cmd(struct psp_mbox __iomem
> > *mbox)
> > >          u32 tmp, expected;
> > >
> > >          /* Expect mbox_cmd to be cleared and ready bit to be set by PSP */
> > > -       expected = FIELD_PREP(PSP_MBOX_FIELDS_READY, 1);
> > > +       expected = FIELD_PREP(PSP_CMDRESP_RESP, 1);
> >
> > What's the meaning of "PSP_CMDRESP_RESP"? I see that this new macro
> > name is currently used by other drivers, but in my opinion "READY" is
> > more descriptive. (It is also aligned to the comment above this line.)
>
> It should indicate that the PSP has responded.  I think both terms work
> to describe what's going on.
>
> Tom - What's your preference?
> I'll either adjust all the drivers to use READY or fix the comment for v2.

I think the comment should be changed.

Thanks,
Tom