Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
References: <20220405093759.1126835-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
 <20220405093759.1126835-2-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
 <d01942c2-e600-b789-e613-9ead8c11d94a@acm.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.7.12; emacs 28.1.50
From:   Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maxim.uvarov@linaro.org,
        joakim.bech@linaro.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org,
        ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, arnd@linaro.org,
        ruchika.gupta@linaro.org, tomas.winkler@intel.com,
        yang.huang@intel.com, bing.zhu@intel.com,
        Matti.Moell@opensynergy.com, hmo@opensynergy.com,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB)
 subsystem
Date:   Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:21:15 +0100
In-reply-to: <d01942c2-e600-b789-e613-9ead8c11d94a@acm.org>
Message-ID: <87ilrmjw38.fsf@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> writes:

> On 4/5/22 02:37, Alex Benn=C3=A9e wrote:
>> +int rpmb_get_write_count(struct rpmb_dev *rdev, int len, u8 *request, i=
nt rlen, u8 *resp)
>> +{
>> +	int err;
>> +
>> +	if (!rdev)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	mutex_lock(&rdev->lock);
>> +	err =3D -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +	if (rdev->ops && rdev->ops->get_write_count)
>> +		err =3D rdev->ops->get_write_count(rdev->dev.parent, rdev->target,
>> +						 len, request, rlen, resp);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&rdev->lock);
>> +
>> +	return err;
>> +}
>
> The names rpmb_get_write_count() and get_write_count() look confusing
> to me since these functions query the write counter. How about adding
> "er" at the end of both function names?
>
> Are there any plans to add an implementation of struct rpmb_ops for
> UFS devices?

Not by me but I agree it would be a useful exercise to see if a unified
API makes sense.

--=20
Alex Benn=C3=A9e