linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/24] arm64: dts: qcom: glymur: Add QUPv3 configuration for serial engines

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: <625c1a6f-3449-48e4-b217-725bc2bda6e4@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:56:23 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Jyothi Kumar Seerapu <jyothi.seerapu@....qualcomm.com>,
        Pankaj Patil <pankaj.patil@....qualcomm.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/24] arm64: dts: qcom: glymur: Add QUPv3 configuration
 for serial engines

On 10/15/25 12:24 PM, Jyothi Kumar Seerapu wrote:
> 
> On 9/25/2025 3:48 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 9/25/25 8:32 AM, Pankaj Patil wrote:
>>> From: Jyothi Kumar Seerapu<jyothi.seerapu@....qualcomm.com>
>>>
>>> Add device tree support for QUPv3 serial engine protocols on Glymur.
>>> Glymur has 24 QUP serial engines across 3 QUP wrappers, each with
>>> support of GPI DMA engines.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jyothi Kumar Seerapu<jyothi.seerapu@....qualcomm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Patil<pankaj.patil@....qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>> [...]
>>
>>> +        gpi_dma2: dma-controller@...000 {
>>> +            compatible = "qcom,glymur-gpi-dma", "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma";
>>> +            reg = <0 0x00800000 0 0x60000>;
>>> +            interrupts = <GIC_SPI 588 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 589 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 590 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 591 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 592 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 593 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 594 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 595 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 596 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 597 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 598 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_SPI 599 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_ESPI 129 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_ESPI 130 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_ESPI 131 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +                     <GIC_ESPI 132 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> +            dma-channels = <16>;
>>> +            dma-channel-mask = <0x3f>;
>>> +            #dma-cells = <3>;
>>> +            iommus = <&apps_smmu 0xd76 0x0>;
>>> +            status = "ok";
>> this is implied by default, drop
> 
> Hi Konard,
> 
> Do you mean we should remove the |status| property for all QUPs and GPI_DMAs from the common device tree (SOC) and enable them only in the board-specific device tree files?

Generally you don't need to specify status = "okay" at all (unless someone
set the status to "disabled"/"reserved" before, such as the initial
definition in the included DTSI)

But I believe you should be able to keep these enabled everywhere, as
the secure configuration which (dis)allows this is SoC-bound 99.9% of
the time

Konrad