On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 10:15 PM Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:25 AM Andrey Smirnov > <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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"? > > > > Or, alternatively, could adding a module parameter, say "jr_mask", to > limit JRs controlled by the driver cover dynamic use case? > Horia, could you please comment on the above? I think getting rid of struct device for JRs is the best approach to dealing with described corner case problems + it will allows us to get rid of this custom JR users lifecycle management https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/drivers/crypto/caam/jr.c?h=v5.4.8#n26 since it can be just done as a part for caam_probe(), so I'd like to either move forward on this series or close this discussion. Thanks, Andrey Smirnov
