linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: mailbox: add doorbell support to ARM MHU

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 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:   Mon, 18 May 2020 19:53:54 -0500
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: mailbox: add doorbell support to ARM MHU

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:42 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 15-05-20, 11:46, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > As I asked you yesterday over the call, it may help if you could share
> > some numbers to back up the doomsday scenario.
>
> Yes, I have already asked Sudeep to get some numbers for this. He will
> get back to us.
>
Thanks, current bottleneck numbers and the patch/changes to improve
that, would help.

> > > - With the current approach it isn't possible to assign different bits
> > >   (or doorbell numbers) to clients from DT and the only way of doing
> > >   that without adding new bindings is by extending #mbox-cells to accept
> > >   a value of 2 as done in this patch.
> > >
> > I am afraid you are confused. You can use bit/doorbell-6 by passing
> > 0x40 to mhu as the data to send.
>
> That's how the code will do it, right I agree. What I was asking was
> the way this information is passed from DT.
>
That is a client/protocol property and has nothing to do with the
controller dt node.

cheers!