lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:03:02AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>
> This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data
> via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver
> is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it
> returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such
> a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> interface.
>
> Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/812999/
>
> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> ---
> drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 7 ++
> drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c | 215 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 224 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
>

[...]

> +static int arm_smc_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct mbox_controller *mbox;
> + struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data;
> + const char *method;
> + bool mem_trans = false;
> + int ret, i;
> + u32 val;
> +
> + if (!of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "arm,num-chans", &val)) {
> + if (!val) {
> + dev_err(dev, "invalid arm,num-chans value %u\n", val);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + } else {
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (!of_property_read_string(dev->of_node, "transports", &method)) {
> + if (!strcmp("mem", method)) {
> + mem_trans = true;
> + } else if (!strcmp("reg", method)) {
> + mem_trans = false;
> + } else {
> + dev_warn(dev, "invalid \"transports\" property: %s\n",
> + method);
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + } else {
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (!of_property_read_string(dev->of_node, "method", &method)) {
> + if (!strcmp("hvc", method)) {
> + invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_hvc;
> + } else if (!strcmp("smc", method)) {
> + invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_smc;
> + } else {
> + dev_warn(dev, "invalid \"method\" property: %s\n",
> + method);
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + } else {
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + mbox = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!mbox)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + mbox->num_chans = val;
> + mbox->chans = devm_kcalloc(dev, mbox->num_chans, sizeof(*mbox->chans),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!mbox->chans)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + chan_data = devm_kcalloc(dev, mbox->num_chans, sizeof(*chan_data),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!chan_data)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < mbox->num_chans; i++) {
> + u32 function_id;
> +
> + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(dev->of_node,
> + "arm,func-ids", i,
> + &function_id);

I missed it in binding but I thought we agreed to make this "arm,func-ids"
a required property and not optional ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-28 16:03    [W:0.155 / U:11.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site