linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add TI PRUSS bindings

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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:47:02 -0600
From:   Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To:     Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>
CC:     <ohad@...ery.com>, <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        <david@...hnology.com>, <nsekhar@...com>, <t-kristo@...com>,
        <nsaulnier@...com>, <jreeder@...com>, <woods.technical@...il.com>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add TI PRUSS bindings

On 2/6/19 9:04 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/02/19 18:19, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com> [190205 16:13]:
>>> On 02/05/2019 10:41 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>> What I'm suggesting here is that kernel remoteproc driver should have nothing to do
>>>> with the other PRU's data RAM.
>>>>
>>>> The application driver if needs both PRUs then it can obviously access both DRAMs
>>>> as it has a phandle to both PRUs.
>>>>
>>> That should be fine.
>>
>> That sounds good to me too.
>>
>> For dts, yeah please allocate the resources for the modules
>> where the resources belong to on the PRUSS internal interconnect :)
>> Devices can move around on the interconnect between SoCs and the
>> modules can get swapped or added.
> 
> If you take a look at "Figure 30-1. PRU-ICSS Overview" in 
> http://www.tij.co.jp/jp/lit/ug/spruhz7h/spruhz7h.pdf
> 
> You can see that DRAM0 and DRAM1 are not part of PRU. That means
> they shouldn't be in the PRU node then.

Yes, they do not belong to a PRU, and should not be defined underneath
one. Both are accessible from both PRU cores, so it is upto the
application on how they can partition the usage.

regards
Suman