linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am62a-mcu: Add R5F remote proc node

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: <390aa52e-e9f2-4ce3-ad1b-eac71f4a211c@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:48:36 -0600
From: Judith Mendez <jm@...com>
To: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>, Andrew Davis <afd@...com>,
        Nishanth Menon
	<nm@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
CC: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Devarsh Thakkar
	<devarsht@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am62a-mcu: Add R5F remote proc
 node

Hi Andrew,

On 1/28/25 10:52 AM, Hari Nagalla wrote:
> On 1/28/25 10:27, Andrew Davis wrote:
>>> +    mcu_r5fss0: r5fss@...00000 {
>>> +        compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss";
>>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>>> +        #size-cells = <1>;
>>> +        ranges = <0x79000000 0x00 0x79000000 0x8000>,
>>> +             <0x79020000 0x00 0x79020000 0x8000>;
>>> +        power-domains = <&k3_pds 7 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
>>
>> Newline here.
>>
>> Also this should be default "disabled". It can be set to "okay"
>> in the board DTS file when the needed mboxes and memory-region
>> are set. Speaking of that, where are those patches? This is
>> incomplete without them and these nodes will not function.
>> Same for the DSP patch.
>>
>> Andrew
> Yes, by default needs to set the node state to "disabled". This is HW 
> description of the wake-up domain components. Memory carve outs and 
> mailbox assignments for IPC are a separate patch as it is configurable 
> and distro dependent.

Yes I plan to disable the nodes in each domain .dtsi file.

Also yes, my understanding is that the memory carveouts could
be a separate series if at all. Not sure if those patches can be
sent upstream since they are distro dependent. Can anyone clarify
if this is the case?

~ Judith