lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:07 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM
> > SMC/HVC mailbox
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:37 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jassi,
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc
> > > > for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:28 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > +examples:
> > > > > > > + - |
> > > > > > > + sram@910000 {
> > > > > > > + compatible = "mmio-sram";
> > > > > > > + reg = <0x0 0x93f000 0x0 0x1000>;
> > > > > > > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > > > > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > > > > > > + ranges = <0 0x0 0x93f000 0x1000>;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + cpu_scp_lpri: scp-shmem@0 {
> > > > > > > + compatible = "arm,scmi-shmem";
> > > > > > > + reg = <0x0 0x200>;
> > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + cpu_scp_hpri: scp-shmem@200 {
> > > > > > > + compatible = "arm,scmi-shmem";
> > > > > > > + reg = <0x200 0x200>;
> > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + firmware {
> > > > > > > + smc_mbox: mailbox {
> > > > > > > + #mbox-cells = <1>;
> > > > > > > + compatible = "arm,smc-mbox";
> > > > > > > + method = "smc";
> > > > > > > + arm,num-chans = <0x2>;
> > > > > > > + transports = "mem";
> > > > > > > + /* Optional */
> > > > > > > + arm,func-ids = <0xc20000fe>, <0xc20000ff>;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > SMC/HVC is synchronously(block) running in "secure mode", i.e,
> > > > > > there can only be one instance running platform wide. Right?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there could be channel for TEE, and channel for Linux.
> > > > > For virtualization case, there could be dedicated channel for each VM.
> > > > >
> > > > I am talking from Linux pov. Functions 0xfe and 0xff above, can't
> > > > both be active at the same time, right?
> > >
> > > If I get your point correctly,
> > > On UP, both could not be active. On SMP, tx/rx could be both active,
> > > anyway this depends on secure firmware and Linux firmware design.
> > >
> > > Do you have any suggestions about arm,func-ids here?
> > >
> > I was thinking if this is just an instruction, why can't each channel be
> > represented as a controller, i.e, have exactly one func-id per controller node.
> > Define as many controllers as you need channels ?
>
> I am ok, this could make driver code simpler. Something as below?
>
> smc_tx_mbox: tx_mbox {
> #mbox-cells = <0>;
> compatible = "arm,smc-mbox";
> method = "smc";
> transports = "mem";
> arm,func-id = <0xc20000fe>;
> };
>
> smc_rx_mbox: rx_mbox {
> #mbox-cells = <0>;
> compatible = "arm,smc-mbox";
> method = "smc";
> transports = "mem";
> arm,func-id = <0xc20000ff>;
> };
>
> firmware {
> scmi {
> compatible = "arm,scmi";
> mboxes = <&smc_tx_mbox>, <&smc_rx_mbox 1>;
> mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> shmem = <&cpu_scp_lpri>, <&cpu_scp_hpri>;
> };
> };
>
Yes, the channel part is good.
But I am not convinced by the need to have SCMI specific "transport" mode.

thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-30 10:13    [W:0.071 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site