linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 01/13] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add support for multipd model

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: <c312824f-1438-d5de-d139-aaeb63f3c566@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 12:42:32 +0530
From:   Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@...cinc.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
CC:     <agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        <mturquette@...libre.com>, <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>,
        <loic.poulain@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>, <quic_sjaganat@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_kathirav@...cinc.com>, <quic_anusha@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_poovendh@...cinc.com>, <quic_varada@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_devipriy@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/13] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add support for
 multipd model



On 6/24/2023 12:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/06/2023 13:39, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote:
>>>> on number of wcss radios connected on that board and only one instance
>>>> of 'qcom,ipq5018-q6-mpd'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand why the user protection domains need a specific
>>> compatible. Why do they need compatible at all?
>>>
>>> Not mentioning that amount of your domains on Q6 is actually fixed per
>>> SoC and probably should not be in DT at all.
>>>
>>     root domain is fixed per soc (One Q6 DSP, one per soc)
>>     user domain(s) are variable (based on number of wcss radios attached)
>>
>>     The sequence to initialize, bring up, tear down the Q6 and wcss radios
>>     are completely different. So in order to differentiate them, we will
>>     need different compatibles. So this is a new rproc driver/architecture
>>     which has a parent/child topology (Q6 DSP -> Master/parent controls
>>     the WCSS (child)).
> 
> I understand you need different properties, but I don't see yet the
> benefit of creating here artificial compatibles. Look at your ipq9574
> DTSI change - it does not use even ipq9574 compatibles for 66% of its
> children.
> 
> Maybe you should have there just property describing type of device or
> bringup?
> 

	Yeah i got your point. Indeed the requirement here is to
	have device specific compatibles, so will have just two
	compatible one for Q6-MPD and another for WCSS-MPD device's


	"qcom,q6-mpd" --> For Q6-MPD device
	"qcom,wcss-mpd" --> For WCSS-MPD device

	Is this approach fine ?

> Given SoC cannot come with different amount of children (PD) and
> different amount of radios. You even fix the firmware name, so
> boards/customers cannot use anything else. It's fixed and the only
> variable element here is disabling some of the blocks per board, if they
> do not have physical interface (e.g. radio).
> 
> You even hard-code the number of PD by using "pd-[123]", without unit
> address, so you do not expect it will grow.
> 
> Unless you want to say that these are devices? But your binding does not
> really suggest it...
> 
> 
> 	Yes, as i mentioned above the requirement is to have device
	specific bindings. We will remove "PD-X" from soc dtsi and
	add it in board dts file.

	So soc dts would have "Q6-MPD" master node & board dts have
	"WCSS-MPD" child nodes based on number of radio's connected
	on board.

	Is this fine ?

Thanks & Regards,
Manikanta.