[PATCH] crypto: marvell - Don't copy hash operation twice into the SRAM

[PATCH] crypto: marvell - Don't copy hash operation twice into the SRAM

[Romain Perier]

No need to copy the template of an hash operation twice into the SRAM
from the step function.

Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@free-electrons.com>
---
 drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c b/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c
index 2a92605..fbbcbf8 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c
@@ -172,9 +172,6 @@ static void mv_cesa_ahash_std_step(struct ahash_request *req)
 	for (i = 0; i < digsize / 4; i++)
 		writel_relaxed(creq->state[i], engine->regs + CESA_IVDIG(i));
 
-	mv_cesa_adjust_op(engine, &creq->op_tmpl);
-	memcpy_toio(engine->sram, &creq->op_tmpl, sizeof(creq->op_tmpl));
-
 	if (creq->cache_ptr)
 		memcpy_toio(engine->sram + CESA_SA_DATA_SRAM_OFFSET,
 			    creq->cache, creq->cache_ptr);
-- 
2.9.3

Re: [PATCH] crypto: marvell - Don't copy hash operation twice into the SRAM

[Gregory CLEMENT]

Hi Romain,
 
 On jeu., déc. 01 2016, Romain Perier <romain.perier@free-electrons.com> wrote:

> No need to copy the template of an hash operation twice into the SRAM
> from the step function.
>

Does this patch fix a bug ot it is jsute a cleanup/improvement?

If it is a bug you should CC stable and add use the Fixes tag.

Gregory

> Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@free-electrons.com>
> ---
>  drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c b/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c
> index 2a92605..fbbcbf8 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c
> @@ -172,9 +172,6 @@ static void mv_cesa_ahash_std_step(struct ahash_request *req)
>  	for (i = 0; i < digsize / 4; i++)
>  		writel_relaxed(creq->state[i], engine->regs + CESA_IVDIG(i));
>  
> -	mv_cesa_adjust_op(engine, &creq->op_tmpl);
> -	memcpy_toio(engine->sram, &creq->op_tmpl, sizeof(creq->op_tmpl));
> -
>  	if (creq->cache_ptr)
>  		memcpy_toio(engine->sram + CESA_SA_DATA_SRAM_OFFSET,
>  			    creq->cache, creq->cache_ptr);
> -- 
> 2.9.3
>

-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

Re: [PATCH] crypto: marvell - Don't copy hash operation twice into the SRAM

[Romain Perier]

Hi,

Le 01/12/2016 à 17:27, Gregory CLEMENT a écrit :
> Hi Romain,
>
>  On jeu., déc. 01 2016, Romain Perier <romain.perier@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>
>> No need to copy the template of an hash operation twice into the SRAM
>> from the step function.
>>
>
> Does this patch fix a bug ot it is jsute a cleanup/improvement?
>
> If it is a bug you should CC stable and add use the Fixes tag.
>
> Gregory


No, it just removes a initialization that is done twice. I have checked, 
it cannot overwrite the context of the operation that was previously 
copied (by the for loop), so it does not fix anything.

Romain

Re: [PATCH] crypto: marvell - Don't copy hash operation twice into the SRAM

[Romain Perier]

Hello,

Le 02/12/2016 à 09:58, Romain Perier a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Le 01/12/2016 à 17:27, Gregory CLEMENT a écrit :
>> Hi Romain,
>>
>>  On jeu., déc. 01 2016, Romain Perier
>> <romain.perier@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No need to copy the template of an hash operation twice into the SRAM
>>> from the step function.
>>>
>>
>> Does this patch fix a bug ot it is jsute a cleanup/improvement?
>>
>> If it is a bug you should CC stable and add use the Fixes tag.
>>
>> Gregory
>
>
> No, it just removes a initialization that is done twice. I have checked,
> it cannot overwrite the context of the operation that was previously
> copied (by the for loop), so it does not fix anything.
>
>

Well, I have a second fix that depends on this one. The second fix
will be marked as "Fixes" (to be backported to stable) so it would 
introduce a ordering issue. I think that I will resend a patch series 
with these two patches and tag both as "Fixes". Please ignore this patch 
for now.


Regards,
Romain