From: James Hartley Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 1/2] crypto: Add Imagination Technologies hw hash accelerator Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:53:27 +0000 Message-ID: <72BC0C8BD7BB6F45988A99382E5FBAE5444630F0@hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org> References: <1425610707-9869-1-git-send-email-james.hartley@imgtec.com> <1425610707-9869-2-git-send-email-james.hartley@imgtec.com> <1582962.nmzkjGWQFm@tauon> <20150310093707.GA17289@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "pawel.moll@arm.com" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "galak@codeaurora.org" , "andrew.bresticker@chromium.org" , "Ezequiel Garcia" , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" To: Herbert Xu , Stephan Mueller Return-path: Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:50220 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751247AbbCJJx3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 05:53:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150310093707.GA17289@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Herbert Xu [mailto:herbert@gondor.apana.org.au] > Sent: 10 March 2015 09:37 > To: Stephan Mueller > Cc: James Hartley; robh+dt@kernel.org; pawel.moll@arm.com; > mark.rutland@arm.com; galak@codeaurora.org; > andrew.bresticker@chromium.org; Ezequiel Garcia; linux- > crypto@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] crypto: Add Imagination Technologies hw hash > accelerator > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 07:35:57AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > > > >+static struct ahash_alg img_algs[] = { > > >+ { > > >+ .init = img_hash_init, > > >+ .update = img_hash_update, > > >+ .final = img_hash_final, > > >+ .finup = img_hash_finup, > > >+ .digest = img_hash_digest, > > >+ .halg = { > > >+ .digestsize = MD5_DIGEST_SIZE, > > >+ .base = { > > >+ .cra_name = "md5", > > >+ .cra_driver_name = "img-md5", > > >+ .cra_priority = 301, > > > > Just curious: why do you use such odd priorities of 301 or 3000? IMHO, > > all you need is a priority of more than 100 to "beat" the generic C > > prios. Maybe you also need to beat the standard assembler > > implementations which are routinely at 200 for hashes. So, a prio of > > 300 should suffice, should it not? > > James, can you answer Stephan's question please? Hi Herbert, and Stephan, The difficulty here is that the driver was written by a summer placement student who has since left the company, and despite searching our internal commit logs I'm unable to find any reason why 301 and 3000 are used. I am happy to set them to 300 if that is a sensible figure to use. Thanks for the review Stephan! > > Thanks, > -- > Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: > http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ > PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt James.