[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72af9e51-3fc5-c2a8-b81b-7a7cbd0c9311@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:58:23 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Srini Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
kernel@...cinc.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] dt-bindings: document the Qualcomm TEE Shared
Memory Bridge
On 30/08/2023 16:39, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/08/2023 15:48, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 11:30, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29.08.2023 10:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 28/08/2023 21:25, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>>> Add Device Tree bindings for Qualcomm TEE Shared Memory Brige - a
>>>>>> mechanism that allows sharing memory buffers between trustzone and the
>>>>>> kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject prefix:
>>>>> dt-bindings: firmware:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> .../bindings/firmware/qcom,shm-bridge.yaml | 36 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,shm-bridge.yaml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,shm-bridge.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,shm-bridge.yaml
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 000000000000..f660962b7b86
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,shm-bridge.yaml
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>>> +---
>>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/firmware/qcom,shm-bridge.yaml#
>>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +title: QCOM Shared Memory Bridge
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +description: |
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not need '|' unless you need to preserve formatting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> + Qualcomm TEE Shared Memory Bridge allows sharing limited areas of kernel's
>>>>>> + virtual memory with the trustzone in order to avoid mapping the entire RAM.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>>> + - Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
>>>>>> + - Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
>>>>>> + - Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>>> + items:
>>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>>> + - qcom,shm-bridge-sa8775p
>>>>>> + - qcom,shm-bridge-sm8150
>>>>>> + - qcom,shm-bridge-sm8450
>>>>>> + - const: qcom,shm-bridge
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks quite empty... Why this cannot be part of qcom,scm? IOW, why do
>>>>> you need new binding if you do not have any resources here and the block
>>>>> is essentially feature of qcom,scm firmware?
>>>> Since it's "discoverable" (via retval of an scm call), I'd second the
>>>> idea of probing this from within the SCM driver.
>>>>
>>>> Konrad
>>>
>>> Downstream has a bunch of DT switches that we don't support for now
>>> upstream. I disagree about shoehorning this into the SCM driver. It
>>> really is a layer on top of SCM but also SCM is a user of this
>>> interface.
>>
>> Sure, for the driver makes sense, but it does not really explain why DT
>> node is needed. It is not separate hardware. I doubt it is even separate
>> firmware, but part of SCM.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>
> Because not all platforms support it and it's the simplest way of
Platforms like SoCs or boards?
> marking the ones that do. Both SHM and SCM nodes sit on the firmware
> node anyway. What do you recommend? A property of the SCM node? Like
> 'qcom,shm-bridge` or something?
If the first - you talk about SoCs - then you have everything needed
already: SCM compatibles. This defines it fully.
If it varies by boards with one SoC, would be different case, but I
really doubt it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists