| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 17:11:59 +0200 From: Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz> To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> Cc: ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom,smsm: Allow specifying mboxes instead of qcom,ipc On Montag, 20. Mai 2024 08:46:39 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 15/05/2024 17:06, Luca Weiss wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > Any feedback on the below topic? > > Can be explained in description, like > mboxes: > description: Each entry corresponds to one remote processor > maxItems: 5 Hi Krzysztof Ack, sounds good. Maybe also from you, any opinion between these two binding styles? So first using index of mboxes for the numbering, where for the known usages the first element (and sometimes the 3rd - ipc-2) are empty <>. The second variant is using mbox-names to get the correct channel-mbox mapping. - qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>; - qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>; - qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>; + mboxes = <0>, <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>; vs. - qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>; - qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>; - qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>; + mboxes = <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>; + mbox-names = "ipc-1", "ipc-2", "ipc-3"; Regards Luca > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists