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: <58d62506-de89-40e4-a3c2-bd27da515a45@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:33:16 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.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

On 09/12/2024 09:11, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> 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.

Good that you pointed it out, I was indeed wondering why this is
"acpm-mbox", not "mbox in compatible.

This needs to be fixed - you cannot have two compatibles for the same
device.

> 
> 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"?

If exynos850 has the same controller, then add it to the binding. Anyway
then use samsung,exynos850-mbox, because samsung,exynos is way too generic.



Best regards,
Krzysztof