linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] soc: c3: Add support for power domains controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <81682c16-916f-c80d-5ffb-b80b4685b673@amlogic.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 10:43:01 +0800
From:   Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@...ogic.com>
To:     Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] soc: c3: Add support for power domains controller

Hi Dmitry,
    Thanks for your advise.

On 2023/7/4 03:37, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> 
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:29:31PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 03/07/2023 11:31, =Xianwei Zhao wrote:
>>> From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@...ogic.com>
>>>
>>> Add support for C3 Power controller. C3 power control
>>> registers are in secure domain, and should be accessed by SMC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@...ogic.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c b/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c
>>> index 25b4b71df9b8..39ccc8f2e630 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c
>>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>>    #include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>>>    #include <dt-bindings/power/meson-a1-power.h>
>>>    #include <dt-bindings/power/meson-s4-power.h>
>>> +#include <dt-bindings/power/amlogic-c3-power.h>
>>>    #include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
>>>    #include <linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h>
>>>    #include <linux/module.h>
>>> @@ -132,6 +133,22 @@ static struct meson_secure_pwrc_domain_desc s4_pwrc_domains[] = {
>>>      SEC_PD(S4_AUDIO,        0),
>>>    };
>>> +static struct meson_secure_pwrc_domain_desc c3_pwrc_domains[] = {
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_NNA,  0),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_AUDIO,        GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_SDIOA,        GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_EMMC, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_USB_COMB, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_SDCARD,       GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_ETH,  GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_GE2D, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_CVE,  GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_GDC_WRAP,     GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_ISP_TOP,              GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_MIPI_ISP_WRAP, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
>>> +   SEC_PD(C3_VCODEC,       0),
>>> +};
>>
>> Please move this struct before _s4_
>>
>>> +
>>>    static int meson_secure_pwrc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    {
>>>      int i;
>>> @@ -179,7 +196,7 @@ static int meson_secure_pwrc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>      for (i = 0 ; i < match->count ; ++i) {
>>>              struct meson_secure_pwrc_domain *dom = &pwrc->domains[i];
>>> -           if (!match->domains[i].index)
>>> +           if (!match->domains[i].name)
>>
>> Is this change necessary ? If yes please move it to another patch
>> and explain it's purpose. If it fixes something, add a Fixes tag so
>> it can be backported.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Neil
>>
> 
> I suppose, this change fixes the situation with SEC_PD(C3_NNA, 0)
> domain, because it has index == 0.
That's true.
> May be it's better to introduce the separate struct member for that? For
> example, 'present' (true or false).
> I think code would be more readable and clean.
> > [...]
> 
> --
> Thank you,
> Dmitry