Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:41:31 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Richard Gong <richard.gong@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, atull@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] Add Intel Stratix10 service layer driver
Message-ID: <20180130074131.GD25976@kroah.com>
References: <1516898344-20020-1-git-send-email-richard.gong@linux.intel.com>
 <20180125165352.GA21640@kroah.com>
 <7e01745c-24aa-62f7-0be9-f74f19d6d880@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7e01745c-24aa-62f7-0be9-f74f19d6d880@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 08:08:11PM -0600, Richard Gong wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Many thanks for your reviews.
> 
> 
> On 01/25/2018 10:53 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:39:03AM -0600, richard.gong@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Intel Stratix10 SoC is composed of a 64 bit quad-core ARM Cortex A53 hard
> > > processor system (HPS) and Secure Device Manager (SDM). SDM is the hardware
> > > which does the FPGA configuration, QSPI, Crypto and warm reset.
> > > 
> > > When the FPGA is configured from HPS, there needs to be a way for HPS to
> > > notify SDM the location and size of the configuration data. Then SDM will
> > > get the configuration data from that location and perform the FPGA configuration.
> > > 
> > > To meet the whole system security needs and support virtual machine
> > > requesting communication with SDM, only the secure world of software (EL3,
> > > Exception Level 3) can interface with SDM. All software entities running
> > > on other exception levels must channel through the EL3 software whenever it
> > > needs service from SDM.
> > > 
> > > Intel Stratix10 service layer driver is added to provide the service for
> > > FPGA configuration. Running at privileged exception level (EL1, Exception
> > > Level 1), Intel Stratix10 service layer driver interfaces with the service
> > > provider at EL1 (Intel Stratix10 FPGA Manager) and manages secure monitor
> > > call (SMC) to communicate with secure monitor software at secure monitor
> > > exception level (EL3).
> > > 
> > > Later the Intel Stratix10 service layer driver will be extended to provide
> > > services for QSPI, Crypto and warm reset.
> > > 
> > > Richard Gong (1):
> > >    driver: misc: add Intel Stratix10 service layer driver
> > > 
> > >   drivers/misc/Kconfig                       |   3 +-
> > >   drivers/misc/Makefile                      |   3 +-
> > >   drivers/misc/intel-service/Kconfig         |   9 +
> > >   drivers/misc/intel-service/Makefile        |   2 +
> > >   drivers/misc/intel-service/intel_service.c | 703 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   include/linux/intel-service-client.h       | 227 ++++++++++
> > >   include/linux/intel-service.h              | 122 +++++
> > >   include/linux/intel-smc.h                  | 246 ++++++++++
> > Simple questions first:
> >   - why do you have 3 different .h files for a single .c file?
> This is because service layer driver interface with both the service
> provider and secure monitor SW.
> intel-service-client.h is created to define interface between service
> providers (FPGA manager is one of them) and service layer. Alan Tull's FPGA
> manager .c file includes this header file
> intel-smc.h defines the secure monitor call (SMC) message protocols used for
> service layer driver in normal world (EL1) to communicate with secure
> monitor SW in secure monitor exception level 3 (EL3). Also this header file
> is shared with firmware since both (FW, service layer) utilizes the same SMC
> message protocol.
> intel-sevice.h is created to define service layer's own data structures
> (service controller, channel for communicating with service provider, shared
> memory region, private data etc)

That's very complex for a single patch submission, don't you think?

Please do not add new apis / interfaces for code that is not part of
your patch series, otherwise we don't know what the future is going to
hold :)

This feels like it should be a series of patches, to properly explain
this and hook up all of the new interfaces you are adding, right?

thanks,

greg k-h