linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: rmtfs: Document qcom,assign-to-nav

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 11:31:33 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
        agross@...nel.org
Cc:     marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: rmtfs: Document
 qcom,assign-to-nav

On 14/12/2022 10:55, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14.12.2022 09:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/12/2022 18:03, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> Some SoCs mandate that the RMTFS is also assigned to the NAV VM, while
>>> others really don't want that. Since it has to be conditional, add a
>>> bool property to toggle this behavior.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml  | 5 +++++
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml
>>> index 2998f1c8f0db..1d8c4621178a 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml
>>> @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ properties:
>>>      description: >
>>>        vmid of the remote processor, to set up memory protection
>>>  
>>> +  qcom,assign-to-nav:
>>> +    type: boolean
>>> +    description: >
>>
>> No need for '>'
>>
>>> +      whether to also assign the region to the NAV VM
>>
>> Here and in property name you express desired Linux driver action, but
>> it is better to express the property of the hardware. What is
>> different/special in these SoCs or their configuration that additional
>> assignment is needed?
> Honestly, I have no clue.. probably there's something more complex
> than was there before connected to GPS..

One thing could be number of VMs - if it is even something known.

Best regards,
Krzysztof