linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom,smsm: Allow specifying mboxes instead of qcom,ipc

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: Tue, 21 May 2024 10:58:07 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, 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 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote:
> 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";

Sorry, don't get, ipc-1 is the first mailbox, so why would there be <0>
in first case? Anyway, the question is if you need to know that some
mailbox is missing. But then it is weird to name them "ipc-1" etc.

Best regards,
Krzysztof