Re: [PATCH 2/2] talitos: Freescale integrated security engine (SEC) driver

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

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:36:50 -0500
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:

> Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:19:43 -0500
> > Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Kim Phillips wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 14:41:17 -0500
> >>> Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Kim Phillips wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:09:04 +0400
> >>>>> Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
> >>>>>> Don't you want to protect against simultaneous access to register space
> >>>>>> from different CPUs? Or it is single processor board only?
> >>>>> Doesn't linux mask the IRQ line for the interrupt currently being
> >>>>> serviced, and on all processors?
> >>>> Yes.  Could there be interference from non-interrupt driver code on 
> >>>> another cpu (or interrupted code), though?
> >>> not that I can see - the fetch fifo register writes are protected with
> >>> per-channel spinlocks.
> >> But you don't take the spinlocks from the interrupt handler.
> > 
> > why can't fetch fifo registers be written the same time the ISR is
> > being accessed?
> 
> I don't know -- you brought them up.  My question was whether there's 
> anything that the ISR touches that is also touched by non-ISR code.
> 
sorry, by ISR I meant interrupt status registers.  but I can't tell
where the suspected simultaneous accesses are.  Evgeniy, can you point
out the register accesses you're talking about?

Kim