[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a72c0e60-732f-3486-722e-851f21ebe640@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 11:48:20 -0400
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@...si.fi>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
Ashish Mhetre <amhetre@...dia.com>,
Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] memory: tegra: Add API for retrieving carveout
bounds
On 04/11/2022 11:46, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 04/11/2022 15:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 04/11/2022 11:33, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> Hi Thierry, Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 24/10/2022 14:15, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:11:56AM +0300, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>>>>> From: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tegra234 NVDEC firmware is loaded from a secure carveout, where it
>>>>> has been loaded by a bootloader. When booting NVDEC, we need to tell it
>>>>> the address of this firmware, which we can determine by checking the
>>>>> starting address of the carveout. As such, add an MC API to query the
>>>>> bounds of carveouts, and add related information on Tegra234.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2:
>>>>> - Add check for 64-bit phys_addr_t. In practice phys_addr_t
>>>>> is always 64 bits where this runs, but it avoids warnings in
>>>>> compile test.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> drivers/memory/tegra/tegra234.c | 5 +++++
>>>>> include/soc/tegra/mc.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> Krzysztof,
>>>>
>>>> I've applied this to the same tree as the patch that uses it for now.
>>>> Let me know if you want me to put this on a separate stable branch for
>>>> you to pull in.
>>>
>>> Any update on this?
>>
>> What kind of update do you expect?
>
> Ha! I guess I should be more explicit :-)
>
> Well, I would like to see this change in -next and so I was hoping that
> you would respond to the above to indicate how you would like to pull
> this in.
The change will be in next via Thierry. I do not have to pull this in.
The maintainer which applies patches is responsible for:
1. Having his tree in linux-next,
2. Sending the patches to upstream maintainer (e.g. arm-soc, Linus)
later in pull request.
There is no job for me here, if I agree with Thierry. There would be a
job if I needed a separate stable branch, but that I did not decide
yet... Do you think I need to pull it? If so, why?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists