From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [RFC HIFN 00/02]: RNG support Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:27:27 +0100 Message-ID: <200711181127.28326.mb@bu3sch.de> References: <20071117192949.19399.75523.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <473FB1E0.600@trash.net> <20071118040401.GA25625@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , Evgeniy Polyakov , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:46162 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505AbXKRK2g (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:28:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071118040401.GA25625@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Sunday 18 November 2007 05:04:01 Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > > On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable > > for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would > > make a lot more sense to return the time to wait to the core, instead > > of waiting 10us in all cases. 256 cycles at a speed of 266MHz comes > > down to 0.96us, so we're waiting about 10 times as long as necessary. > > Since its busy waiting anyway, I'd think that from a performance POV > > constant polling or returning the exact amount of time would be more > > reasonable. > > I agree, a better interface would be to let the hardware do the > blocking where necessary. > > Michael, what do you think about this? Patches are welcome. ;) -- Greetings Michael.