linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-m4f: Add bindings for K3 AM64x SoCs

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: <8662e02b-9d28-8ffa-6ec2-5cc6348933fb@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 17:18:01 -0600
From:   Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.com>
CC:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <kernel@...labora.com>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-m4f: Add bindings for
 K3 AM64x SoCs

On 3/8/23 14:58, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> +required:
>> +  - compatible
>> +  - reg
>> +  - reg-names
>> +  - ti,sci
>> +  - ti,sci-dev-id
>> +  - ti,sci-proc-ids
>> +  - resets
>> +  - firmware-name
>> +  - mboxes
> The 'mboxes' property is marked as required but the description section above
> clearly state the M4F can operate without IPC.
> 
Well, when the M4F is used as a safety processor it is typically booted 
from SBL/u-boot and may isolate the MCU domain from main domain/A53 to 
function in higher safety level. In these scenarios there is no remote 
proc handling of M4F life cycle management (LCM) and IPC. But, on the 
other hand, when the M4F is used as a non safety processor its LCM is 
handled by remote proc(main domain) and mailboxes for IPC are required.