Re: [PATCH] AMCC Crypto4xx Device Driver v2]

[Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:18:20 -0700
James Hsiao <jhsiao@amcc.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 20:51 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > - The question on ABLKCIPHER kconfig was ignored
> Is ABLKCIPHER a sub set of BLKCIPHER? So, if BLKCIPHER is selected then
> if ABLKCIPHER is present, it will use ABLKCIPHER otherwise using
> BLKCIPHER algorithm? Correct?

this is my bad, commit 653ebd9c8510a7d647ed23e66e1338f848ebdbab
"blkcipher: Merge ablkcipher and blkcipher into one option/module"
renders CRYPTO_ABLKCIPHER obsolete in favour of CRYPTO_BLKCIPHER.

> > - Marking functions static
> We have more than one file, that is why some of the function are not
> static.

have one file then?

> > - Global lsec_core variable which doesn't allow for more than one
> > device
> We only support single incidence of device.

it's also a matter of unnecessarily polluting global namespace.

> > - Complete lack of locking code, how do you enforce mutually exclusive
> > access to the device?
> 
> The crypto engine have couple bits 'command ready' and 'packet done',
> which servers as semaphore here. So, software don't need extra locking.

know if it's applicable at all, but I imagine it's not SMP safe.

Kim