Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 Mar 2020 09:47:11 +0100 | From | 'Greg KH' <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: xilinx: Add sysfs interface |
| |
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:55:46PM -0800, Jolly Shah wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > ------Original Message------ > > From: 'Greg Kh' <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:52PM > > To: Jolly Shah <jolly.shah@xilinx.com> > > Cc: Rajan Vaja <RAJANV@xilinx.com>, Ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org > <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, Mingo@kernel.org <mingo@kernel.org>, > Matt@codeblueprint.co.uk <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>, Sudeep.holla@arm.com > <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, Hkallweit1@gmail.com <hkallweit1@gmail.com>, > Keescook@chromium.org <keescook@chromium.org>, Dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>, Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>, > Linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, > Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: xilinx: Add sysfs interface > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:37:16PM -0800, Jolly Shah wrote: > > > > Just make the direct call to the firmware driver, no need to muck around > > > > with tables of function pointers. In fact, with the spectre changes, > > > > you just made things slower than needed, and you can get back a bunch of > > > > throughput by removing that whole middle layer. > > > > > > > > > > arm,scpi is doing the same way and we thought this approach will be more > > > acceptable than direct function calls but happy to change as suggested. > > > > Just because one random tiny thing does it the wrong way does not mean > > to focus on that design pattern and ignore the thousands of other > > apis/interfaces in the kernel that do not do it that way :) > > > > > > So go do that first please, before adding any new stuff. > > > > > > > > Now for the ioctl, yeah, that's not a "normal" pattern either. But > > > > right now you only have 2 "different" ioctls that you call. So why not > > > > just turn those 2 into real function calls as well that then makes the > > > > "ioctl" call to the hardware? That makes things a lot more obvious on > > > > the kernel driver side exactly what is going on. > > > > > > > > > > Sure as i understand firmware driver will provide real function calls to be > > > used by user drivers and underneath it will call ioctl for desired > > > operation. Please correct if I misunderstood. > > > > You do not misunderstand. > > Submitted v3 with required changes. Please review.
Will do, when I get to it, relax :)
| |