linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document qcom,tmelite-qmp

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: <01a4eb57-d7bc-4d0b-82f6-d3c19a089966@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:57:31 +0530
From: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document
 qcom,tmelite-qmp



On 12/5/2024 5:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/12/2024 10:17, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/5/2024 1:42 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2024 09:06, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>> From: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
>>>>
>>>> This binding describes the component responsible for communication
>>>> between the TME-L server based subsystems (Q6) and the TME-L client
>>>> (APPSS/BTSS/AUDIOSS), used for security services like secure image
>>>> authentication, enable/disable efuses, crypto services. Each client
>>>> in the   SoC has its own block of message RAM and IRQ for communication
>>>> with the TME-L SS. The protocol used to communicate in the message RAM
>>>> is known as Qualcomm Messaging Protocol (QMP).
>>>
>>> This is RFC, so only limited review follows. I will review more once
>>> this is ready for review.
>>>
>> Thanks. Once i get the design/approach confirmed, will post the V1.
> 
> Not a v1, but next version. This was v1 already, because we do not count
> from 0. Please use b4 to avoid such mistakes.

Ok, understand.

Regards,
  Sricharan