On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:57 AM Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/6/2019 5:19 PM, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:27 PM Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: linux-crypto-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-crypto- > >>> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Andrey Smirnov > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 8:44 PM > >>> To: linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Cc: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>; Chris Healy > >>> <cphealy@xxxxxxxxx>; Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Horia Geanta > >>> <horia.geanta@xxxxxxx>; Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > >>> Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@xxxxxxx>; dl-linux-imx <linux- > >>> imx@xxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Subject: [PATCH 0/5] CAAM JR lifecycle > >>> > >>> Everyone: > >>> > >>> This series is a different approach to addressing the issues brought up in > >>> [discussion]. This time the proposition is to get away from creating per-JR > >>> platfrom device, move all of the underlying code into caam.ko and disable > >>> manual binding/unbinding of the CAAM device via sysfs. Note that this series > >>> is a rough cut intented to gauge if this approach could be acceptable for > >>> upstreaming. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Andrey Smirnov > >>> > >>> [discussion] lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190904023515.7107-13- > >>> andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx > >>> > >>> Andrey Smirnov (5): > >>> crypto: caam - use static initialization > >>> crypto: caam - introduce caam_jr_cbk > >>> crypto: caam - convert JR API to use struct caam_drv_private_jr > >>> crypto: caam - do not create a platform devices for JRs > >>> crypto: caam - disable CAAM's bind/unbind attributes > >>> > >> > >> To access caam jobrings from DPDK (user space drivers), we unbind job-ring's platform device from the kernel. > >> What would be the alternate way to enable job ring drivers in user space? > >> > > > > Wouldn't either building your kernel with > > CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_FSL_CAAM_JR=n (this series doesn't handle that right > > currently due to being a rough cut) or disabling specific/all JRs via > > DT accomplish the same goal? > > > It's not a 1:1 match, the ability to move a ring to user space / VM etc. > *dynamically* goes away. > Wouldn't it be possible to do that dynamically using DT overlays? That is "modprobe -r caam; <apply overlay>; modprobe caam"? Thanks, Andrey Smirnov
