Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <95651ffcf1d00f54b72eca006355cc6591787068.camel@iokpp.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] UFS Advanced RPMB
From:   Bean Huo <beanhuo@iokpp.de>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>,
        "alim.akhtar@samsung.com" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        "beanhuo@micron.com" <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        "bvanassche@acm.org" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        "tomas.winkler@intel.com" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
        "daejun7.park@samsung.com" <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        "quic_cang@quicinc.com" <quic_cang@quicinc.com>,
        "quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com" <quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com>,
        "quic_xiaosenh@quicinc.com" <quic_xiaosenh@quicinc.com>,
        "quic_richardp@quicinc.com" <quic_richardp@quicinc.com>,
        "quic_asutoshd@quicinc.com" <quic_asutoshd@quicinc.com>,
        "hare@suse.de" <hare@suse.de>
Cc:     "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:50:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB6575F12BAAB0883DA91EFC5DFC3E9@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20221107131038.201724-1-beanhuo@iokpp.de>
         <DM6PR04MB6575F12BAAB0883DA91EFC5DFC3E9@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


Avri, 

Thanks for your suggetions and review

On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 08:18 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > In UFS 4.0, it introduced advanced RPMB, which can significantly
> > improve
> > RPMB's command performance, enhancing its atomic operation. We
> > don't
> > know which implementation will please everyone, mark this advanced
> > RPMB
> > patch as RFC. Any suggestions to make the patch a master patch are
> > welcome.
> > Based on suggestions and feedback from Hannes Reinecke and Bart, we
> > can
> > use job_bsg->request and job_bsg->reply to pass EHS packets without
> > changing
> > the BSG V4 structure and BSG core. So we push RFC patch just to
> > start
> > Advanced RPMB mainlining
> 
> I concur with this approach.
> 
> The current limitations that the new spec imposes,
> 
> e.g. putting confidential data in a construct that lives in the ufs-
> driver,
> 
> practically gives no other alternative but ufs-bsg.
> 
> 
> 
> If no one else object, maybe you can leave out the rfc from the next
> version.
> 
> 

I will prepare next version, and address your all questions in the next
version. thanks.

Kind regards,
Bean