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: <6ab56868-b2d2-4b8a-ac06-d0d35a5e8998@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:40:20 -0600
From: Judith Mendez <jm@...com>
To: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>, Andrew Davis <afd@...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>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>, Nishanth
 Menon <nm@...com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am62a-mcu: Add R5F remote proc
 node

On 1/28/25 11:48 AM, Judith Mendez wrote:
> 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?
> 

As per offline discussion, I will include the memory carveouts in this
same series.
~ Judith

> ~ Judith
>