(resending to add linux-crypto, patches unchanged)
Hi,
these two patches provide a different approach to an issue I tried
to fix lately [1].
Instead of casting everything I now promote local types to size_t, so
that the min3() arguments naturally match in type.
As size_t is defined as "unsigned int" on 32-bit architectures
anyway, that actually does not change anything there, but instead
provides a clean approach to get it compiled for arm64.
I split this up because 1/2 seems much cleaner to me than 2/2, so we
can have a separate discussion/merge process on this.
Cheers,
Andre.
[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-December/395689.html
Andre Przywara (2):
crypto: sunxi-ss-cipher: promote variables to match types in min3()
calls
crypto: sunxi-ss-hash: promote variables to match types in min3()
calls
drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-cipher.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c | 12 ++++++------
drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--
2.6.4
Le 08/01/2016 12:24, Andre Przywara a écrit :
> (resending to add linux-crypto, patches unchanged)
>
> Hi,
>
> these two patches provide a different approach to an issue I tried
> to fix lately [1].
> Instead of casting everything I now promote local types to size_t, so
> that the min3() arguments naturally match in type.
> As size_t is defined as "unsigned int" on 32-bit architectures
> anyway, that actually does not change anything there, but instead
> provides a clean approach to get it compiled for arm64.
>
> I split this up because 1/2 seems much cleaner to me than 2/2, so we
> can have a separate discussion/merge process on this.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-December/395689.html
>
> Andre Przywara (2):
> crypto: sunxi-ss-cipher: promote variables to match types in min3()
> calls
> crypto: sunxi-ss-hash: promote variables to match types in min3()
> calls
>
> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-cipher.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c | 12 ++++++------
> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
Hello
Sorry for this late answer.
I am in trouble with those patch, so we have with Andre a long conversation about it.
Basically, sun4i-ss will never be available on 64bits platform. (A64 will have a totally new crypto engine).
So letting it to compile under 64bit arch is only useful when goal is to add COMPILE_TEST for it.
But COMPILE_TEST cannot simply be added with those patch since some arches (x86/x86_64 at least) does not have writesl/readsl available.
The conclusion is that it is simpler to block 64bit build for sun4i-ss.
Regards
LABBE Corentin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hi Corentin,
(CC:ing Boris for the x86 parts)
thanks for looking at this and your answer.
On 16/01/16 20:32, Corentin LABBE wrote:
> Le 08/01/2016 12:24, Andre Przywara a écrit :
>> (resending to add linux-crypto, patches unchanged)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> these two patches provide a different approach to an issue I tried
>> to fix lately [1].
>> Instead of casting everything I now promote local types to size_t, so
>> that the min3() arguments naturally match in type.
>> As size_t is defined as "unsigned int" on 32-bit architectures
>> anyway, that actually does not change anything there, but instead
>> provides a clean approach to get it compiled for arm64.
>>
>> I split this up because 1/2 seems much cleaner to me than 2/2, so we
>> can have a separate discussion/merge process on this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andre.
>>
>> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-December/395689.html
>>
>> Andre Przywara (2):
>> crypto: sunxi-ss-cipher: promote variables to match types in min3()
>> calls
>> crypto: sunxi-ss-hash: promote variables to match types in min3()
>> calls
>>
>> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-cipher.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c | 12 ++++++------
>> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss.h | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Hello
>
> Sorry for this late answer.
>
> I am in trouble with those patch, so we have with Andre a long conversation about it.
> Basically, sun4i-ss will never be available on 64bits platform. (A64 will have a totally new crypto engine).
> So letting it to compile under 64bit arch is only useful when goal is to add COMPILE_TEST for it.
OK, but actually I don't see the strict requirement for having
COMPILE_TEST here. Usually those warnings point to portability issues in
the code and should be fixed, regardless of it being usable for a
particular architecture or not. Since it got enabled with ARCH_SUNXI on
arm64 without further ado, I took this as a sufficient reason to fix
those issues.
But I see your point in it being useless outside of arm(32) (unless
Allwinner comes up with a ARMv8 SoC using the "old" crypto engine ;-)
> But COMPILE_TEST cannot simply be added with those patch since some arches (x86/x86_64 at least) does not have writesl/readsl available.
So for the records (and interested x86 readers):
The sunxi-ss driver uses writesl/readsl, which _are_ defined in
include/asm-generic/io.h. But x86 does not include this header (probably
for historic reasons). So I added the #include in
arch/x86/include/asm/io.h, this required to dummy define a lot of
implemented functions, like:
#define readb readb
basically for all MMIO and IO port accessors. After that it worked, I
could use COMPILE_TEST on the driver and found the same issues as with
arm64 (which were fixed by my patch).
Now adding a number of hideous #defines to a core header in an unrelated
architecture to enable COMPILE_TEST for a single driver seems a bit of a
stretch to me, so I refrain from sending this out - unless people ask
for it.
Boris, do you recall any discussions about asm-generic/io.h on x86 in
the past?
> The conclusion is that it is simpler to block 64bit build for sun4i-ss.
OK, I am fine with just adding "&& !64BIT" to the Kconfig entry.
Actually that was my first impulse on finding this issue, but then I
felt it a bit cowardly to paper over the problem instead of fixing it.
So if no-one disagrees, I will include the !64bit dependency in the A64
enablement series I plan to send out later this week.
Cheers,
Andre.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:01:55AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi Corentin,
>
> (CC:ing Boris for the x86 parts)
>
> thanks for looking at this and your answer.
>
> On 16/01/16 20:32, Corentin LABBE wrote:
> > Le 08/01/2016 12:24, Andre Przywara a écrit :
> >> (resending to add linux-crypto, patches unchanged)
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> these two patches provide a different approach to an issue I tried
> >> to fix lately [1].
> >> Instead of casting everything I now promote local types to size_t, so
> >> that the min3() arguments naturally match in type.
> >> As size_t is defined as "unsigned int" on 32-bit architectures
> >> anyway, that actually does not change anything there, but instead
> >> provides a clean approach to get it compiled for arm64.
> >>
> >> I split this up because 1/2 seems much cleaner to me than 2/2, so we
> >> can have a separate discussion/merge process on this.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andre.
> >>
> >> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-December/395689.html
> >>
> >> Andre Przywara (2):
> >> crypto: sunxi-ss-cipher: promote variables to match types in min3()
> >> calls
> >> crypto: sunxi-ss-hash: promote variables to match types in min3()
> >> calls
> >>
> >> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-cipher.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> >> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c | 12 ++++++------
> >> drivers/crypto/sunxi-ss/sun4i-ss.h | 2 +-
> >> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > Sorry for this late answer.
> >
> > I am in trouble with those patch, so we have with Andre a long conversation about it.
> > Basically, sun4i-ss will never be available on 64bits platform. (A64 will have a totally new crypto engine).
> > So letting it to compile under 64bit arch is only useful when goal is to add COMPILE_TEST for it.
>
> OK, but actually I don't see the strict requirement for having
> COMPILE_TEST here. Usually those warnings point to portability issues in
> the code and should be fixed, regardless of it being usable for a
> particular architecture or not. Since it got enabled with ARCH_SUNXI on
> arm64 without further ado, I took this as a sufficient reason to fix
> those issues.
>
> But I see your point in it being useless outside of arm(32) (unless
> Allwinner comes up with a ARMv8 SoC using the "old" crypto engine ;-)
>
> > But COMPILE_TEST cannot simply be added with those patch since some arches (x86/x86_64 at least) does not have writesl/readsl available.
>
> So for the records (and interested x86 readers):
> The sunxi-ss driver uses writesl/readsl, which _are_ defined in
> include/asm-generic/io.h. But x86 does not include this header (probably
> for historic reasons). So I added the #include in
> arch/x86/include/asm/io.h, this required to dummy define a lot of
> implemented functions, like:
> #define readb readb
> basically for all MMIO and IO port accessors. After that it worked, I
> could use COMPILE_TEST on the driver and found the same issues as with
> arm64 (which were fixed by my patch).
>
> Now adding a number of hideous #defines to a core header in an unrelated
> architecture to enable COMPILE_TEST for a single driver seems a bit of a
> stretch to me, so I refrain from sending this out - unless people ask
> for it.
>
> Boris, do you recall any discussions about asm-generic/io.h on x86 in
> the past?
Bah, I don't remember what I did last week. :-)
Let's CC tip people. I'm leaving in the rest of the mail for reference.
> > The conclusion is that it is simpler to block 64bit build for sun4i-ss.
>
> OK, I am fine with just adding "&& !64BIT" to the Kconfig entry.
> Actually that was my first impulse on finding this issue, but then I
> felt it a bit cowardly to paper over the problem instead of fixing it.
>
> So if no-one disagrees, I will include the !64bit dependency in the A64
> enablement series I plan to send out later this week.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
>
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.