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]

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:52:07 +0530
From: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <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 1/18/24 01:23, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> 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>
>> ---
> 

Hey Konrad,

Thanks for taking time to review the series.

> [...]
> 
>> +  - |
>> +    #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.

I am aware of ^^ discussion and the X1E doesn't have this problem.
Both the regions described are only used for mailbox communication.
X1E uses the scmi perf protocol for cpu dvfs.

-Sibi

> 
> Konrad