linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt: mailbox: Add TI Message Manager

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: <56B9DC30.5040806@ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:31:44 -0600
From:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
CC:	Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@...com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt: mailbox: Add TI Message Manager

On 02/08/2016 10:14 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:

Thanks for the review.

> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> wrote:
>> +
>> +       msgmgr: msgmgr@...00000 {
>> +               compatible = "ti,k2g-message-manager", "ti,message-manager";
>> +               #mbox-cells = <1>;
>> +               reg-names = "queue_proxy_region", "queue_state_debug_region";
>> +               reg = <0x02a00000 0x400000>, <0x028c3400 0x400>;
>> +
>> +               msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx_prio0: pmmc_tx_prio0 {
>> +                       ti,queue-id = <0>;
>> +                       ti,proxy-id = <0>;
>> +               };
>> +
>> +               msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx: pmmc_rx {
>> +                       ti,queue-id = <5>;
>> +                       ti,proxy-id = <2>;
>> +                       interrupt-names = "rx";
>> +                       interrupts = <GIC_SPI 324 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>> +               };
>> +       };
>> +
> I think we should get rid of consumer specifics from the provider node...


If I get rid of the consumer nodes, how do you propose I describe the rx
queue interrupt(s) in the msmgr dt node (Every Rx queue will have it's
own interrupt - and it cannot be reverse computed from queue ID, proxy ID)?


>> +...
>> +       pmmc {
>> +               ...
>> +               mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>> +               mboxes = <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx>
>> +                        <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx>;
>> +               ...
>> +       };
>>
> ... and have consumers like
>        pmmc {
>                ...
>                mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>                mboxes = <&msgmgr 0 0>
>                         <&msgmgr 5 2>;
>        };
> 
> I leave the IRQ for you to decide how to specify - a 'dummy' or
> 'valid' always provided as last cell in mboxes or some other way.
> (I'll review other patches in detail later)

What do we do with the issues that Suman pointed out in the mailbox
framework itself? Could you respond to that thread[1] as well?


[1] http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=145496308418123&w=2

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon