linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add bindings for ZynqMP firmware

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: <f6a416b7-542f-a3c3-538f-8549cf4e96c3@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:48:09 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jolly Shah <JOLLYS@...inx.com>
Cc:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "matt@...eblueprint.co.uk" <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        "hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "michal.simek@...inx.com" <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "dmitry.torokhov@...il.com" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Rajan Vaja <RAJANV@...inx.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add bindings for ZynqMP
 firmware



On 07/03/18 22:25, Jolly Shah wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> 

[...]

>>> +Examples:
>>> +	firmware {
>>> +		zynqmp_firmware: zynqmp-firmware {
>>> +			compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-firmware";
>>> +			method = "smc";
>>> +		};
>>> +	};
>>>
>>
>> Do you foresee using SMC/HVC for this firmware even on future platforms?
>> If not, I suggest to keep the protocol part separate from the transport i.e.
>> smc/hvc via ATF. It could be replaced with mailbox or some h/w mechanism in
>> future ?
>>
> 
> We have PSCI and EEMI interfaces exposed to linux from ATF. PSCI is
> an EEMI client. We do not have current plans to switch to mailbox as it
> will require 2 communication channels to PMU as PSCI is through ATF.
> 

OK, but I just saw some bindings that has mailbox interface, honestly
it's getting too confusing with multiple series on the same thing
floating and hence I requested to put it together as one series.
-- 
Regards,
Sudeep