Re: [PATCH] crypto/dpaa2_sec: remove iova conversion for fle address

[Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>]

On Wednesday 09 May 2018 05:59 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 May 2018 05:00 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Shreyansh Jain [mailto:shreyansh.jain@nxp.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 12:40 PM
>>> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Hemant Agrawal
>>> <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto/dpaa2_sec: remove iova 
>>> conversion for
>>> fle address
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 09 May 2018 03:54 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 10:14 AM
>>>>> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>>>>> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: akhil.goyal@nxp.com; dev@dpdk.org; Hemant Agrawal
>>>>> <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto/dpaa2_sec: remove iova
>>>>> conversion for fle address
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/9/2018 2:56 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>>>>>> From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fle is already in virtual addressing mode - no need to perform
>>>>>> address conversion for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 8d1f3a5d751b ("crypto/dpaa2_sec: support crypto operation")
>>>>>> Cc: akhil.goyal@nxp.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
>>>>
>>>> Added Cc: stable@dpdk.org (try remembering this for next time, please).
>>>
>>> Thanks for doing it this time. I'll take care of this next time.
>>
>> No worries. Actually, gcc 32 bits is broken:
>>
>> drivers/crypto/dpaa2_sec/dpaa2_sec_dpseci.c:1264:7:
>> error: cast to pointer from integer of different size 
>> [-Werror=int-to-pointer-cast]
>>    op = (struct rte_crypto_op *)DPAA2_GET_FLE_ADDR((fle - 1));
>>
>> Is this PMD supposed to be compatible for 32-bit targets?
> 
> Oh! This is bad. I will send you an update on this in a few minutes.
> Ideally, the code was written for 64bit in mind - though, it should 
> still be able to work (at least compile) for 32 bit.

I have sent the v2 but I observe that the patchwork for v1 states 
'accepted' - not sure if I can change that back to 'superseded'.

If you have already applied and issued the pull request for next (and 
you won't be changing it), I will send a fix against that.

> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pablo
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Applied to dpdk-next-crypto.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Pablo
>>>>
>>
>