linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53C67E54.2010104@arm.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:29:56 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ks.giri@...sung.com" <ks.giri@...sung.com>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	"courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com" <courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com>,
	"mporter@...aro.org" <mporter@...aro.org>,
	"slapdau@...oo.com.au" <slapdau@...oo.com.au>,
	"lftan.linux@...il.com" <lftan.linux@...il.com>,
	"loic.pallardy@...com" <loic.pallardy@...com>,
	"s-anna@...com" <s-anna@...com>,
	"ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org" <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
	"bjorn@...o.se" <bjorn@...o.se>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
	"Mollie.Wu@...fujitsu.com" <Mollie.Wu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"t.takinishi@...fujitsu.com" <t.takinishi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox



On 16/07/14 12:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:16:50 Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>> Agreed if these mbox-names are more specific to attached devices and that
>> was my initial understanding too. But I got confused when I saw something
>> like below in the patch[1]
>>
>> +       mhu: mhu0@...f0000 {
>> +               #mbox-cells = <1>;
>> +               compatible = "fujitsu,mhu";
>> +               reg = <0 0x2B1F0000 0x1000>;
>> +               interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP Non-Sec */
>> +                            <0 35 4>, /* HP Non-Sec */
>> +                            <0 37 4>; /* Secure */
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       mhu_client: scb@0 {
>> +               compatible = "fujitsu,scb";
>> +               mbox = <&mhu 1>;
>> +               mbox-names = "HP_NonSec";
>> +       };
>>
>> Here the name used is more controller specific.
>
> The name is definitely specific to the client, not the master. The

IIUC this controller has 3 channels: Secure, High and Low Priority Non 
Secure.
I assumed the name is derived from that rather than what the client is
using it for, hence the confusion. That might be fine but I am more 
interested
what will be the name if another client uses the same channel in the above
example.

Regards,
Sudeep

> string "HP_NonSec" should be required in the binding for the "fujitsu,scb"
> device here, and the scb driver should pass that hardcoded string
> to the mailbox API to ask for a channel.
>
> 	Arnd
>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/