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: <755770ba-d110-8b2e-3c1f-9b65686dc51f@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:16:03 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jolly Shah <JOLLYS@...inx.com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "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>,
        "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 12/03/18 23:07, Jolly Shah wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,

>>>> 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.
> 
> Mailbox binding is used for power management driver. Mailbox is only
> used for PMU->APU communication. APU->PMU communication is always
> through EEMI firmware interface which is using SMC/HVC.
> 

Ah OK, is it because there's no non-secure mailbox or to avoid races,
all non-secure EEMI is channeled through SMC ?

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep