linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms

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:
 <AM6PR04MB594199822CE1944DCE3F86D888DE2@AM6PR04MB5941.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 23:48:31 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
CC: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, "Peng Fan (OSS)"
	<peng.fan@....nxp.com>, "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
	"krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "conor+dt@...nel.org"
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org"
	<arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: introduce
 property mbox-rx-timeout-ms

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: introduce
> property mbox-rx-timeout-ms
> 
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 12:33:09PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi:
> > > introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 10:39:53AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi:
> > > > > introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 11:17:14AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS)
> wrote:
> > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > System Controller Management Interface(SCMI) firmwares
> might
> > > > > have
> > > > > > different designs by SCMI firmware developers. So the
> maximum
> > > > > receive
> > > > > > channel timeout value might also varies in the various designs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms to let each
> platform
> > > > > > could set its own timeout value in device tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > V2:
> > > > > >  Drop defaults, update description.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> | 6
> > > > > ++++++
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > >
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > > index ebf384e76df1..dcac0b36c76f 100644
> > > > > > ---
> > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > > +++
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > > @@ -121,6 +121,12 @@ properties:
> > > > > >        atomic mode of operation, even if requested.
> > > > > >      default: 0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +  max-rx-timeout-ms:
> > > > > > +    description:
> > > > > > +      An optional time value, expressed in milliseconds,
> > > > > > + representing
> > > > > the
> > > > > > +      mailbox maximum timeout value for receive channel. The
> > > > > > + value
> > > > > should
> > > > > > +      be a non-zero value if set.
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > IIRC, you had the min and max constraint in the earlier response.
> > > > > You need to have rushed and posted another version before I
> > > > > could respond with my preference.
> > > > >
> > > > > So there is no rush, these are v6.12 material. Take time for
> > > > > respining and give some time for the review.
> > > >
> > > > Sure. I just not sure what the maximum should be set, so I drop
> > > > the minimum and maximum from my previous email.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Worst case we can just have min constraint to indicate it must be
> > > non- zero value as you have mentioned above and drop that
> statement
> > > as it becomes explicit with the constraint.
> >
> > I'll use below in v3:
> >   max-rx-timeout-ms:
> >     description:
> >       An optional time value, expressed in milliseconds, representing
> the
> >       mailbox maximum timeout value for receive channel. The value
> should
> >       be a non-zero value if set.
> >     minimum: 1
> >
> > Put the binding away, when you have time, please check whether the
> > driver changes are good or not.
> > BTW, since our Android team is waiting for this patchset got R-b or
> > A-b, then the patches could be accepted by Google common kernel,
> we
> > could support GKI in our release which is soon in near days. So I am
> > being pushed :)
> 
> Hi Peng,
> 
> once the bindings are accepted I wanted to fold also this series of yours
> in my transport rework series.

No problem, feel free to take it into your series, I will post out V3 later(wait
if Sudeep is ok with I add minimum 1 or not), but v3 2/2 should be same
as v2 2/2.

Thanks,
Peng.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian