linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: add bindings for samsung,exynos

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: <9886429b-1bf3-4dc3-b0d4-294a98e44ff2@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 08:11:35 +0000
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: jassisinghbrar@...il.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, andre.draszik@...aro.org,
 kernel-team@...roid.com, willmcvicker@...gle.com, peter.griffin@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: add bindings for
 samsung,exynos

Thanks for the review, Krzysztof!

On 12/9/24 7:52 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 05:41:35PM +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> Add bindings for the Samsung Exynos Mailbox Controller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  .../bindings/mailbox/samsung,exynos.yaml      | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Filename based on compatible, so:
> google,gs101-acpm-mbox
> 
> but then entire binding seems for different device, so you most likely
> miss here actual Exynos devices.
> 

I need some guidance here, please. The mailbox controller can pass the
mailbox messages either via its own data registers, or via SRAM (like it
is used by the ACPM protocol).

I'm thinking of using the same driver for both cases, and differentiate
between the two by compatible and `of_device_id.data`. Thus I propose to
have a "google,gs101-acpm-mbox" compatible for the ACPM SRAM case and in
the future we may add a "google,gs101-mbox" compatible for the messages
passed via the controller's data register case.

Given this, I shall use the more generic name for the bindings, thus
maybe "google,gs101-mbox.yaml"? But then exynos850 has the same
controller, shouldn't we just use "samsung,exynos.yaml"?

Thanks!
ta