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: <696985ccf4a1b85a478a980fdbd3cc31fb69619a.camel@collabora.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 10:31:46 +0000
From:   Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...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 Fri, 2023-03-10 at 08:41 -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> 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.
> 

Which means the memory regions are also optional as in the isolated
case they're be no communications with the main domain.

Martyn