linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] firmware: Add MediaTek TinySYS SCMI Protocol

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: <9e8d0dfc-7dc4-461d-afd9-bd381219422f@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:32:24 +0200
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Cc: robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 matthias.bgg@...il.com, sudeep.holla@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] firmware: Add MediaTek TinySYS SCMI Protocol

Il 23/06/25 14:17, Cristian Marussi ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 02:01:34PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> This series adds basic support for the MediaTek TinySYS SCMI Protocol,
>> found on the MediaTek Dimensity 9200, 9300 and 9400, other than on the
>> MT8196 Chromebook SoC.
>>
>> This is used to communicate with the CM_MGR and other MCUs for power
>> management purposes.
> 
> Hi Angelo,
> 
> thanks for this.
> 
> I will do a proper review in the coming days of this series anyway, but
> upfront for future V2:
> 
> - you should provide some sort of documentation for this new
>    vendor protocol and its messages, as an example from IMX:
> 
> 	drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx95.rst

Noted.

> 
> - where is the SCMI driver that will call all the new vendor ops
>    defined in: scmi_mtk_protocol.h ?

This was tested with code that is not clean at all (hence I can't push it upstream)
and well... I didn't think about the fact that, effectively, without an user, this
code ends up being unused.

I can't promise to send a clean user in this cycle, but I would really appreciate
if you could still check the protocol code, so that if there's anything that you
can spot I can fix it while the rest gets done :-)

Thank you,
Angelo

> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian