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: <20230310154145.GA1882384@p14s>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:41:45 -0700
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To:     Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>
Cc:     Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.com>,
        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 Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 05:18:01PM -0600, Hari Nagalla wrote:
> 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.

Well, what you wrote above is pretty much explained verbatim in the
"description" section of the bindings.  Mailboxes are optional and as such
should not be found under the "required" section.