[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a83b00c4-a33a-4687-b024-173c6c5a66a0@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 11:20:45 +0530
From: Jaskaran Singh <quic_jasksing@...cinc.com>
To: Yong Wu (吴勇) <Yong.Wu@...iatek.com>,
"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"christian.koenig@....com" <christian.koenig@....com>,
"quic_vjitta@...cinc.com" <quic_vjitta@...cinc.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"sumit.semwal@...aro.org" <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"jstultz@...gle.com" <jstultz@...gle.com>,
"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Jianjiao Zeng (曾健姣)
<Jianjiao.Zeng@...iatek.com>,
Kuohong Wang (王國鴻)
<kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"Brian.Starkey@....com" <Brian.Starkey@....com>,
"benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com" <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>,
"tjmercier@...gle.com" <tjmercier@...gle.com>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com"
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: MediaTek: Add reserved
memory for SVP
On 10/20/2023 3:20 PM, Yong Wu (吴勇) wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 10:16 +0530, Vijayanand Jitta wrote:
>>
>> Instead of having a vendor specific binding for cma area, How about
>> retrieving
>>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1594948208-4739-1-git-send-email-hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com/
>> ?
>> dma_heap_add_cma can just associate cma region and create a heap. So,
>> we can reuse cma heap
>> code for allocation instead of replicating that code here.
>>
>
> Thanks for the reference. I guess we can't use it. There are two
> reasons:
>
> a) The secure heap driver is a pure software driver and we have no
> device for it, therefore we cannot call dma_heap_add_cma.
>
Hi Yong,
We're considering using struct cma as the function argument to
dma_heap_add_cma() rather than struct device. Would this help
resolve the problem of usage with dma_heap_add_cma()?
> b) The CMA area here is dynamic for SVP. Normally this CMA can be used
> in the kernel. In the SVP case we use cma_alloc to get it and pass the
> entire CMA physical start address and size into TEE to protect the CMA
> region. The original CMA heap cannot help with the TEE part.
>
Referring the conversation at
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7a2995de23c24ef22c071c6976c02b97e9b50126.camel@mediatek.com/;
since we're considering abstracting secure mem ops, would it make sense
to use the default CMA heap ops (cma_heap_ops), allocate buffers from it
and secure each allocated buffer?
Thanks,
Jaskaran.
> Thanks.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Vijay
>>
>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists