linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Wakeup Mailbox for Intel processors

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250512153224.GA3377771-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 10:32:24 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
	Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>,
	Chris Oo <cho@...rosoft.com>, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Wakeup Mailbox
 for Intel processors

On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 08:23:39PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 09:10:22AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 10:16:10PM GMT, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > > > If this is a device, then compatibles specific to devices. You do not
> > > > get different rules than all other bindings... or this does not have to
> > > > be binding at all. Why standard reserved-memory does not work for here?
> > > > 
> > > > Why do you need compatible in the first place?
> > > 
> > > Are you suggesting something like this?
> > > 
> > > reserved-memory {
> > > 	# address-cells = <2>;
> > > 	# size-cells = <1>;
> > > 
> > > 	wakeup_mailbox: wakeupmb@...000 {
> > > 		reg = < 0x0 0xfff000 0x1000>
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > and then reference to the reserved memory using the wakeup_mailbox
> > > phandle?
> > 
> > Yes just like every other, typical reserved memory block.
> 
> Thanks! I will take this approach and drop this patch.

If there is nothing else to this other than the reserved region, then 
don't do this. Keep it like you had. There's no need for 2 nodes.

Rob