RE: [PATCH 3/6] crypto: ccp: Move some PSP mailbox bit definitions into common header

[Limonciello, Mario]

[Public]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Dąbroś <jsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 03:04
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Grzegorz Bernacki <gjb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thomas, Rijo-john <Rijo-
> john.Thomas@xxxxxxx>; Lendacky, Thomas
> <Thomas.Lendacky@xxxxxxx>; herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Allen, John
> <John.Allen@xxxxxxx>; Singh, Brijesh <Brijesh.Singh@xxxxxxx>; Jarkko
> Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David S. Miller
> <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] crypto: ccp: Move some PSP mailbox bit definitions
> into common header
> 
> (...)
> > @@ -99,7 +93,7 @@ static int psp_check_mbox_recovery(struct psp_mbox
> __iomem *mbox)
> >
> >         tmp = readl(&mbox->cmd_fields);
> >
> > -       return FIELD_GET(PSP_MBOX_FIELDS_RECOVERY, tmp);
> > +       return FIELD_GET(PSP_CMDRESP_RECOVERY, tmp);
> >  }
> >
> >  static int psp_wait_cmd(struct psp_mbox __iomem *mbox)
> > @@ -107,7 +101,7 @@ static int psp_wait_cmd(struct psp_mbox __iomem
> *mbox)
> >         u32 tmp, expected;
> >
> >         /* Expect mbox_cmd to be cleared and ready bit to be set by PSP */
> > -       expected = FIELD_PREP(PSP_MBOX_FIELDS_READY, 1);
> > +       expected = FIELD_PREP(PSP_CMDRESP_RESP, 1);
> 
> What's the meaning of "PSP_CMDRESP_RESP"? I see that this new macro
> name is currently used by other drivers, but in my opinion "READY" is
> more descriptive. (It is also aligned to the comment above this line.)

It should indicate that the PSP has responded.  I think both terms work
to describe what's going on.

Tom - What's your preference?
I'll either adjust all the drivers to use READY or fix the comment for v2.