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: <321e1d4a-5aa3-49cb-8a85-e05dbaa08e78@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 12:59:17 +0530
From: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
CC: <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>,
        <andersson@...nel.org>, <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>, <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: Document qcom,ipq5424-tmel



On 3/28/2025 1:32 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 11:47:49PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
>> +properties:
>> +  compatible:
>> +    items:
>> +      - enum:
>> +          - qcom,ipq5424-tmel
> 
> blank line
ok

> 
>> +  reg:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  interrupts:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  mboxes:
>> +    maxItems: 1
> 
> Why mbox is having an mbox? This does not look right and suggest the
> block is misrepresented. I read the diagram and description two times
> and still do not see how this fits there.
TMEL/QMP secure functionalities are exposed to clients (like rproc) by 
registering TMEL as mailbox controller. The IPC bit to communicate with 
the TMEL/QMP controller itself is handled by the apcs mailbox. Hence
it looks like a mbox inside mbox.

Alternatively, would it be fine to fold the IPC bit handling in this 
driver itself for doing the regmap_write (instead of connecting to
apcs mailbox separately) ?

Also, there are couple of other ways of designing this as well.
Earlier i mentioned this in the RFC post [1] for getting the design
sorted out.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241205080633.2623142-1-quic_srichara@quicinc.com/T/

-------------------------------------------------------------
Had the below mentioned in the RFC earlier.

The intention of posting this is to get the design reviewed/corrected 
since there are also other possible ways of having this SS support like:

a) Make TMEL QMP as a 'rpmsg' driver and clients can connect using
    rmpsg_send

b) Keep TMEL APIs seperately in drivers/firmware which would export APIs
    and QMP mailbox seperately.
    Clients can then call the exported APIS.

c) Combine both TMEL and QMP as mailbox (this is the approach used here)

Regards,
  Sricharan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ