linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/7] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Add CPUCP mailbox controller bindings

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: <7bf729a4-f3ac-4751-9275-a2aa4d62c036@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:53:04 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, sudeep.holla@....com,
 cristian.marussi@....com, andersson@...nel.org, jassisinghbrar@...il.com,
 robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, quic_rgottimu@...cinc.com,
 quic_kshivnan@...cinc.com, conor+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/7] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Add CPUCP mailbox
 controller bindings

On 1/17/24 18:34, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Add devicetree binding for CPUSS Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox
> controller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
> ---

[...]

> +  - |
> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> +
> +    mailbox@...30000 {
> +        compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox", "qcom,cpucp-mbox";
> +        reg = <0x17430000 0x10000>, <0x18830000 0x300>;

These reg spaces are quite far apart.. On 7280-8550, a similar
mailbox exists, although it's dubbed RIMPS-mbox instead. In
that case, I separated the mbox into tx (via
qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c) and rx (with a simple driver). Still
haven't pushed or posted that anywhere, I'd need to access
another machine..

On (some of) these SoCs, one of the channels (rx[1], iirc?) clearly
bleeds into the CPUFREQ_HW/OSM register region, which gives an
impression of misrepresenting the hardware. X1E doesn't have a
node for cpufreq_hw defined, so I can't tell whether it's also the
case here.

Konrad