On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:17:58PM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> This adds core driver files. The core part is implementing a
> platform driver probe and remove callbaks, the probe enables
> clocks, checks crypto version, initialize and request dma
> channels, create done tasklet and work queue and finally
> register the algorithms into crypto subsystem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 333 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/crypto/qce/core.h | 69 ++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 402 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/crypto/qce/core.h
>
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
[...]
> +static struct qce_algo_ops qce_ops[] = {
> + {
> + .type = CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_ABLKCIPHER,
> + .register_alg = qce_ablkcipher_register,
> + },
> + {
> + .type = CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_AHASH,
> + .register_alg = qce_ahash_register,
> + },
> +};
> +
> +static void qce_unregister_algs(struct qce_device *qce)
> +{
> + struct qce_alg_template *tmpl, *n;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(tmpl, n, &qce->alg_list, entry) {
> + if (tmpl->crypto_alg_type == CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_AHASH)
> + crypto_unregister_ahash(&tmpl->alg.ahash);
> + else
> + crypto_unregister_alg(&tmpl->alg.crypto);
> +
> + list_del(&tmpl->entry);
> + kfree(tmpl);
I find this whole memory/list management to be very disorganised.
ops->register_alg() is supposed to allocate this item--more precisely,
multiple items--using something that must be able to be kfree'd
directly, register it with the crypto core, and put it on this list
manually. Here we unregister/remove/free this in the core. Josh's
recommendation of a unregister_alg callback might help, but it all
remains a bit unclear with register_alg/unregister_alg managing X
algorithms per call.
Additionally, above you have qce_ops, which clearly defines the
operations for specific algorithms types/groups, which in later patches
are shown to be seperated out into independent implementations.
>From what I can tell, this seems to be a framework with built-in yet
independent crypto implementations which call the crypto API directly.
It would be more logical to me if this was seperated out into a
"library/core" API, with the individual implementations as platform
drivers of their own. Then they can register with the core, managing
memory how they please.
What am I missing?
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static int qce_register_algs(struct qce_device *qce)
> +{
> + struct qce_algo_ops *ops;
> + int i, rc = -ENODEV;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(qce_ops); i++) {
> + ops = &qce_ops[i];
> + ops->async_req_queue = qce_async_request_queue;
> + ops->async_req_done = qce_async_request_done;
> + rc = ops->register_alg(qce, ops);
> + if (rc)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (rc)
> + qce_unregister_algs(qce);
> +
> + return rc;
> +}
-Courtney
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
