linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Add support i.MX95 BLK CTL module clock features

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240319071724.6n4vpbkmddejksd5@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:17:24 +0100
From: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
	Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...nel.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Add support i.MX95 BLK CTL module clock features

On 24-03-18, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > To me this sound like we can turn of the power/clock of an hardware
> > > > block which was assigned to a core running SIL-2 certified software
> > > > from an non- critical core running Linux if we follow that approach.
> > > > Also the
> > > > SIL-2 software requires the non-critical software to turn on the
> > > > power of these hardware blocks. Is this correct?
> > >
> > > Non-critical software not able to turn off power/clock of a critical
> > > resource in safety software domain.
> > > Safety software not require non-safety software to turn on power/clocks.
> > 
> > Due to lack of documentation I don't know how you implemented this in
> > HW/SW, also the system-design is telling us which parts should be seen as
> > safe and which don't. However I get your point, VPUMIX is not going to be a
> > part of the safe partition albeit it "could" due to complexity.
> 
> If safe function needs VPU feature, VPUMIX could be totally assigned to M7
> core through TRDC isolation, not assigned its BLK CTRL to system controller
> core.

Thanks for the clarification :)

Regards,
  Marco