mail archive of the barebox mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
To: Johannes Zink <j.zink@pengutronix.de>, patchwork-jzi@pengutronix.de
Cc: Barebox Mailing List <barebox@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: crc32: make crc32 available in PBL
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:08:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <65dea589-e8f6-e5d3-76a6-7a966e498017@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <80bc6b24-35c5-f895-ace2-887ceddaa542@pengutronix.de>

On 29.08.23 12:55, Johannes Zink wrote:
> On 8/29/23 12:45, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>>> +lwl-$(CONFIG_CRC32_EARLY)        += crc32.o
>>>
>>> pbl-obj- is the correct prefix. lwl- means pbl- if we have PBL
>>> support at all and obj- otherwise (for legacy systems without PBL),
>>> while pbl-obj- is equivalent to duplicating the line once with pbl-
>>> and once with obj-
>>
>> s/pbl-obj-/obj-pbl-/ :)

Sorry, had a small brain fart here.

You didn't remove the original obj-,
so now lwl- either expands to and extra obj- or to pbl-.

obj-pbl- makes sense when you use the same symbol for both PBL and
barebox proper, but as you're introducing a new symbol, you can
leave it as lwl- or make it pbl- for explicitness.

> ack, gonna fix this for v2.
> 
>>>
>>>>   obj-$(CONFIG_DIGEST_SHA384_GENERIC)    += sha4.o
>>>>   obj-$(CONFIG_DIGEST_SHA512_GENERIC)    += sha4.o
>>>>   obj-y    += memneq.o
>>>> diff --git a/crypto/crc32.c b/crypto/crc32.c
>>>> index 95cb2212db2b..284d39351682 100644
>>>> --- a/crypto/crc32.c
>>>> +++ b/crypto/crc32.c
>>>> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
>>>>   #define STATIC static inline
>>>>   #endif
>>>>   -#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE) && !defined(__PBL__)
>>>
>>> You could also replace the dynamic allocation with a static array initialized
>>> to zero. That way you can have a dynamic crc table even in PBL without affecting
>>> image size as the BSS is not part of the image.
> 
> ack. Is this ok?
> 
> #ifdef __PBL__
>   static uint32_t _crc_table_memory[sizeof(uint32_t) * 256] = { 0 };

The array is 256 elements, not 1024 elements. Explicit intialization
is unnecessary.

> #endif
> 
> static void *alloc_crc_table() {
> #ifdef __PBL__
>     return _crc_table_memory;
> #else
>     return xmalloc(sizeof(uint32_t) * 256);
> #endif
> }
> 
> If so, I can change it for v2.

My idea was to drop the allocation altogether by using BSS.
If you do this, you should not need any __PBL__ checking at all.

Either you have CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE and the table is dynamically
filled in bss on first access or you have CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE=n
and the table is already there and need not be allocated.

On a second thought, I am not sure if we want a table at all in PBL.
Do you do a lot of CRC32 computation? Maybe we should just not use
a table at all in PBL and just calculate a single crc32?
That's what Sascha did here:

2d13b856604b ("crc: Add PBL variant for crc_itu_t()")

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Ahmad

> 
> Best regards
> Johannes
> 
> 
>>>
>>>>     static uint32_t *crc_table;
>>>>   @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ STATIC uint32_t crc32(uint32_t crc, const void *_buf, unsigned int len)
>>>>   {
>>>>       const unsigned char *buf = _buf;
>>>>   -#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE) && !defined(__PBL__)
>>>>       if (!crc_table)
>>>>           make_crc_table();
>>>>   #endif
>>>> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ STATIC uint32_t crc32_no_comp(uint32_t crc, const void *_buf, unsigned int len)
>>>>   {
>>>>      const unsigned char *buf = _buf;
>>>>   -#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE) && !defined(__PBL__)
>>>>       if (!crc_table)
>>>>           make_crc_table();
>>>>   #endif
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> base-commit: bef38b18eeb5d2f1fac334fb8b831e47261e099c
>>>> change-id: 20230829-crc32_in_pbl-4d824629d4e2
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |




  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-29 11:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-29  9:28 Johannes Zink
2023-08-29 10:29 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2023-08-29 10:45   ` Ahmad Fatoum
2023-08-29 10:55     ` Johannes Zink
2023-08-29 11:08       ` Ahmad Fatoum [this message]
2023-08-29 12:05         ` Johannes Zink
2023-08-29 12:17           ` Ahmad Fatoum

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=65dea589-e8f6-e5d3-76a6-7a966e498017@pengutronix.de \
    --to=a.fatoum@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=j.zink@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=patchwork-jzi@pengutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox