linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add nodes to boot WPSS

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: <161653719350.3012082.12055201782488576903@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:06:33 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org, mani@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add nodes to boot WPSS

Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-03-13 20:16:39)
> On Sat 13 Mar 15:46 CST 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-03-08 21:51:51)
> > > Add miscellaneous nodes to boot the Wireless Processor Subsystem on
> > 
> > Maybe add (WPSS) after the name so we know they're related.
> > 
> > > SC7280 SoCs.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=438217
> > > Depends on ipcc dt node enablement from ^^ 
> > > 
> > >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 143 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > > index 18637c369c1d..4f03c468df51 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > > @@ -244,12 +251,131 @@
> > >                 reg = <0 0x80000000 0 0>;
> > >         };
> > >  
> > > +       tcsr_mutex: hwlock {
> > > +               compatible = "qcom,tcsr-mutex";
> > > +               syscon = <&tcsr_mutex_regs 0 0x1000>;
> > > +               #hwlock-cells = <1>;
> > > +       };
> > 
> > Is this node in the right place? I think the node above it is 'memory'?
> > In which case 'hwlock' comes before 'memory' alphabetically.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for spotting this, as it's no longer acceptable to have a
> standalone "syscon" node I was asked to rewrite the binding for this a
> few months ago. So the tcsr_mutex should now be represented with a reg
> under /soc.

Oh nice, I wasn't aware.

> > > +                       #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > > +               };
> > > +       };
> > > +
> > > +       smp2p-mpss {
> > > +               compatible = "qcom,smp2p";
> > > +               qcom,smem = <435>, <428>;
> > > +               interrupts-extended = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
> > > +                                            IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P
> > > +                                            IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> > > +               mboxes = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
> > > +                               IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P>;
> > > +
> > > +               qcom,local-pid = <0>;
> > > +               qcom,remote-pid = <1>;
> > > +
> > > +               modem_smp2p_out: master-kernel {
> > > +                       qcom,entry-name = "master-kernel";
> > > +                       #qcom,smem-state-cells = <1>;
> > > +               };
> > > +
> > > +               modem_smp2p_in: slave-kernel {
> > > +                       qcom,entry-name = "slave-kernel";
> > 
> > Do these names need to have 'master' and 'slave' in them? We're trying
> > to avoid these terms. See Documentation/process/coding-style.rst Section
> > 4 naming.
> > 
> 
> They need to match the naming in the firmware, but I would welcome a
> future change to something in line with the coding style and simply more
> descriptive.
> 

Sibi can this be done? I think it's still pretty early days for the
firmware so hopefully the terms can be replaced with something
different.