linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Support mailboxes unidirectional channels

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: <1838b760-c911-cb0a-184e-150df2f86c3b@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:36:51 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, souvik.chakravarty@....com,
        nicola.mazzucato@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Support mailboxes
 unidirectional channels

On 27/03/2023 17:27, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>>> +  - |
>>> +    firmware {
>>> +        scmi {
>>> +            compatible = "arm,scmi";
>>> +            mboxes = <&mhu_U_tx 0 0>, <&mhu_U_rx 0 0>;
>>> +            shmem = <&cpu_scp_lpri0>;
>>> +
>>> +            #address-cells = <1>;
>>> +            #size-cells = <0>;
>>
>> I don't think adding one more example with difference in only one piece
>> is needed here.
>>
> 
> Mmm, I thought was sensible to add this example, given that a mailbox
> transport configuration for a mailbox exposing unidrectional channels is
> quite different from the usual bidirectional channel config already
> present in the pre-existent example.
> 
> I'll add mbox-names into this example and see if I can change your
> mind...or I can then finally drop it.

And what exactly this one more example changes? Does not validate
different parts of the binding if only one property differs...

Best regards,
Krzysztof