On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 08:42 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until > you have verified the sender or the content. > On 25/09/2023 07:08, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > Thanks for the reviews. > > > > On Sat, 2023-09-23 at 20:02 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > >> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments > until > >> you have verified the sender or the content. > >> On 18/09/2023 21:21, Jason-JH.Lin wrote: > >>> GCE has specific purpose registers, abbreviated as SPR. > >>> Client can us SPR to store data or programs. > >>> > >>> In CMDQ driver, it allows client to STORE or LOAD data into SPR. > >>> The value stored in SPR will be cleared after reset GCE HW > thread. > >>> > >>> There are 4 SPR (register index 0 - 3) in every GCE HW thread. > >>> SPR is thread-independent and HW secure protected. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> include/linux/soc/mediatek/mtk-cmdq.h | 5 +++++ > >> > >> There is no user of this... Why do you add unused defines? > > > > It'll be used in cmdq_sec_insert_backup_cookie() at [PATCH 10/15]. > > Should I merge this patch into [PATCH 10/15]? > > Yes, because what is the purpose of adding unused defines? I asked > before and did not get answer... > I'm totally agree with merging this patch to the usage parts of mtk- cmdq-sec-mailbox.c. But I have no idea why mtk-cmdq-sec-mailbox.c and mtk-cmdq-mailbox.c are not placed in the same maintainer's tree as mtk-cmdq.h and mtk- cmdq-helper.c, so I just separate them to different patch by tree like the requirement from previous sent series. I will re-organized this series to make the definition and the usage of the code in the same patch. Regards, Jason-JH.Lin > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
