* [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node @ 2021-06-01 22:51 Sudeep Holla 2021-06-01 22:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: " Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: " Sudeep Holla 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-01 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Cc: Sudeep Holla, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and the OS should be compatible with one of the following: - amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem - amlogic,meson-axg-scp-shmem - arm,juno-scp-shmem - arm,scp-shmem Add the check for the same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> Cc: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c index d0dee37ad522..0fb4fe53523d 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c @@ -897,6 +897,13 @@ static const struct of_device_id legacy_scpi_of_match[] = { {}, }; +static const struct of_device_id shmem_of_match[] = { + { .compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem", }, + { .compatible = "amlogic,meson-axg-scp-shmem", }, + { .compatible = "arm,juno-scp-shmem", }, + { .compatible = "arm,scp-shmem", }, + { } +}; static int scpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { int count, idx, ret; @@ -933,6 +940,9 @@ static int scpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct mbox_client *cl = &pchan->cl; struct device_node *shmem = of_parse_phandle(np, "shmem", idx); + if (!of_match_device(shmem_of_match, shmem)) + return -ENXIO; + ret = of_address_to_resource(shmem, 0, &res); of_node_put(shmem); if (ret) { -- 2.25.1 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-01 22:51 [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-01 22:51 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:29 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:33 ` Etienne Carriere 2021-06-02 7:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: " Sudeep Holla 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-01 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Cc: Sudeep Holla, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan, Etienne Carriere The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, return -ENOMEM; shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) + return -ENXIO; + ret = of_address_to_resource(shmem, 0, &res); of_node_put(shmem); if (ret) { diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c index fcbe2677f84b..78198ef94438 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c @@ -76,6 +76,9 @@ static int smc_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, return -ENOMEM; np = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", 0); + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) + return -ENXIO; + ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &res); of_node_put(np); if (ret) { -- 2.25.1 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-01 22:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: " Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:29 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:33 ` Etienne Carriere 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Cc: Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan, Etienne Carriere On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:51:25PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > Ignore this patch, sent a wrong version. This breaks build... > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > return -ENOMEM; > > shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > + return -ENXIO; > + > ret = of_address_to_resource(shmem, 0, &res); > of_node_put(shmem); > if (ret) { > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > index fcbe2677f84b..78198ef94438 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > @@ -76,6 +76,9 @@ static int smc_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > return -ENOMEM; > > np = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", 0); > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) s/shmem/np/ > + return -ENXIO; > + > ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &res); > of_node_put(np); > if (ret) { > -- > 2.25.1 > -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-01 22:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: " Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:29 ` Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:33 ` Etienne Carriere 2021-06-02 7:36 ` Sudeep Holla 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Etienne Carriere @ 2021-06-02 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sudeep Holla Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan Hello Sudeep, On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > return -ENOMEM; > > shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > + return -ENXIO; Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? Regards, Etienne > + > ret = of_address_to_resource(shmem, 0, &res); > of_node_put(shmem); > if (ret) { > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > index fcbe2677f84b..78198ef94438 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > @@ -76,6 +76,9 @@ static int smc_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > return -ENOMEM; > > np = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", 0); > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > + return -ENXIO; > + > ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &res); > of_node_put(np); > if (ret) { > -- > 2.25.1 > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-02 7:33 ` Etienne Carriere @ 2021-06-02 7:36 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:44 ` Etienne Carriere 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Etienne Carriere Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > Hello Sudeep, > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > > the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > > same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > > > > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > > Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > > + return -ENXIO; > > Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". > Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? > No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the addition of check. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-02 7:36 ` Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:44 ` Etienne Carriere 2021-06-02 7:53 ` Sudeep Holla 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Etienne Carriere @ 2021-06-02 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sudeep Holla Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > Hello Sudeep, > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > > > the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > > > same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > > > > > > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > > Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > > > Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > > > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > > > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > > > + return -ENXIO; > > > > Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". > > Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? > > > > No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM > driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is > reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the > missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the > addition of check. Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS examples snipped. This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be clearly stated in the yaml I think. br, etienne > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-02 7:44 ` Etienne Carriere @ 2021-06-02 7:53 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-03 17:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2021-06-03 18:19 ` Etienne Carriere 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Etienne Carriere Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > Hello Sudeep, > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > > > > the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > > > > same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > > > > > > > > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > > > Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > > > > Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > > > > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > > index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > > > > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > > > > + return -ENXIO; > > > > > > Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". > > > Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? > > > > > > > No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM > > driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is > > reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the > > missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the > > addition of check. > > Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS > examples snipped. > This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be > clearly stated in the yaml I think. > Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-02 7:53 ` Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-03 17:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2021-06-03 17:20 ` Florian Fainelli 2021-06-03 17:42 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-03 18:19 ` Etienne Carriere 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Florian Fainelli @ 2021-06-03 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sudeep Holla, Etienne Carriere Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Jim Quinlan On 6/2/21 12:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: >>>> Hello Sudeep, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and >>>>> the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the >>>>> same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> >>>>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >>>>> Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> >>>>> Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ >>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ >>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c >>>>> index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c >>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, >>>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>>> >>>>> shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); >>>>> + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) >>>>> + return -ENXIO; >>>> >>>> Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". >>>> Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? >>>> >>> >>> No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM >>> driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is >>> reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the >>> missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the >>> addition of check. >> >> Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS >> examples snipped. >> This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be >> clearly stated in the yaml I think. >> > > Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious. > FWIW, our legacy DTs would have the following: reserved-memory { /* This is a placeholder */ NWMBOX: NWMBOX { }; }; brcm_scmi: brcm_scmi@0 { compatible = "arm,scmi-smc", "arm,scmi"; mboxes = <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 0>, <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 1>; mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; shmem = <&NWMBOX>; status = "disabled"; so while we have since switched to the SMC transport, the shared memory still does not have an "arm,scmi-shmem" compatible string, and this is a relatively new thing, so I am not sure we can enforce that just yet? -- Florian _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-03 17:18 ` Florian Fainelli @ 2021-06-03 17:20 ` Florian Fainelli 2021-06-03 17:45 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-03 17:42 ` Sudeep Holla 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Florian Fainelli @ 2021-06-03 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sudeep Holla, Etienne Carriere Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Jim Quinlan On 6/3/21 10:18 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 6/2/21 12:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: >>>>> Hello Sudeep, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and >>>>>> the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the >>>>>> same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> >>>>>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >>>>>> Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> >>>>>> Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ >>>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ >>>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c >>>>>> index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c >>>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, >>>>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>>>> >>>>>> shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); >>>>>> + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) >>>>>> + return -ENXIO; >>>>> >>>>> Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". >>>>> Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM >>>> driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is >>>> reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the >>>> missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the >>>> addition of check. >>> >>> Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS >>> examples snipped. >>> This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be >>> clearly stated in the yaml I think. >>> >> >> Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious. >> > > FWIW, our legacy DTs would have the following: > > reserved-memory { > /* This is a placeholder */ > NWMBOX: NWMBOX { > }; > }; > > brcm_scmi: brcm_scmi@0 { > compatible = "arm,scmi-smc", "arm,scmi"; > mboxes = <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 0>, <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 1>; > mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; > shmem = <&NWMBOX>; > status = "disabled"; > > so while we have since switched to the SMC transport, the shared memory > still does not have an "arm,scmi-shmem" compatible string, and this is a > relatively new thing, so I am not sure we can enforce that just yet? Sorry, I incorrectly browsed the binding history, this is not a new requirement, will make sure we fix it at our end, too. -- Florian _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-03 17:20 ` Florian Fainelli @ 2021-06-03 17:45 ` Sudeep Holla 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-03 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Etienne Carriere, moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Jim Quinlan On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 10:20:32AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 6/3/21 10:18 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > On 6/2/21 12:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > >>>>> Hello Sudeep, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > >>>>>> the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > >>>>>> same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > >>>>>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > >>>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > >>>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > >>>>>> index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > >>>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > >>>>>> return -ENOMEM; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > >>>>>> + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > >>>>>> + return -ENXIO; > >>>>> > >>>>> Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". > >>>>> Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM > >>>> driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is > >>>> reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the > >>>> missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the > >>>> addition of check. > >>> > >>> Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS > >>> examples snipped. > >>> This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be > >>> clearly stated in the yaml I think. > >>> > >> > >> Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious. > >> > > > > FWIW, our legacy DTs would have the following: > > > > reserved-memory { > > /* This is a placeholder */ > > NWMBOX: NWMBOX { > > }; > > }; > > > > brcm_scmi: brcm_scmi@0 { > > compatible = "arm,scmi-smc", "arm,scmi"; > > mboxes = <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 0>, <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 1>; > > mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; > > shmem = <&NWMBOX>; > > status = "disabled"; > > > > so while we have since switched to the SMC transport, the shared memory > > still does not have an "arm,scmi-shmem" compatible string, and this is a > > relatively new thing, so I am not sure we can enforce that just yet? > > Sorry, I incorrectly browsed the binding history, this is not a new > requirement, will make sure we fix it at our end, too. Indeed, I cross checked that when I hit the issue on Juno yesterday. Anyways this version has build issues, was sent by mistake. I have resend the correct ones later[1] -- Regards, Sudeep [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210602073851.1005607-2-sudeep.holla@arm.com/ _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-03 17:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2021-06-03 17:20 ` Florian Fainelli @ 2021-06-03 17:42 ` Sudeep Holla 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-03 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Etienne Carriere, moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Jim Quinlan, Sudeep Holla (I saw your later reply but had started replying, so sending anyway.) On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 10:18:20AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 6/2/21 12:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > >>>> Hello Sudeep, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > >>>>> the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > >>>>> same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > >>>>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > >>>>> Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > >>>>> Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > >>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > >>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > >>>>> index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > >>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > >>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > >>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > >>>>> return -ENOMEM; > >>>>> > >>>>> shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > >>>>> + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > >>>>> + return -ENXIO; > >>>> > >>>> Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". > >>>> Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? > >>>> > >>> > >>> No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM > >>> driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is > >>> reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the > >>> missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the > >>> addition of check. > >> > >> Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS > >> examples snipped. > >> This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be > >> clearly stated in the yaml I think. > >> > > > > Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious. > > > > FWIW, our legacy DTs would have the following: > > reserved-memory { > /* This is a placeholder */ > NWMBOX: NWMBOX { > }; > }; > > brcm_scmi: brcm_scmi@0 { > compatible = "arm,scmi-smc", "arm,scmi"; > mboxes = <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 0>, <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 1>; > mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; > shmem = <&NWMBOX>; > status = "disabled"; > > so while we have since switched to the SMC transport, the shared memory > still does not have an "arm,scmi-shmem" compatible string, and this is a > relatively new thing, so I am not sure we can enforce that just yet? Since multiple people got the same doubt, I went and checked, it has been there since we introduced the bindings in v4.17 https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt#L88 Converting to yaml made to add this check which was missing. So ideally it is not any compatibility issues. Just that we were never good at following the binding before 😉. Happened to me, sinve Juno upstream has old SCPI support, I had a patch to change it to SCMI as we test many things on Juno, and found even I didn't follow what I wrote in the binding correctly. Thanks to YAML which found the issue, so thought of adding check in the code too in case people ignore YAML and expect to work, we will fail. Mission accomplished 😁! -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-02 7:53 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-03 17:18 ` Florian Fainelli @ 2021-06-03 18:19 ` Etienne Carriere 2021-06-04 9:13 ` Sudeep Holla 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Etienne Carriere @ 2021-06-03 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sudeep Holla Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > > Hello Sudeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > > > > > the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the > > > > > same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > > > > Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > > > > > Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > > > > > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++ > > > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 3 +++ > > > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > > > index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c > > > > > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > > > shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx); > > > > > + if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem")) > > > > > + return -ENXIO; > > > > > > > > Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram". > > > > Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes? > > > > > > > > > > No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM > > > driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is > > > reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the > > > missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the > > > addition of check. > > > > Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS > > examples snipped. > > This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be > > clearly stated in the yaml I think. > > > > Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious. Yes it was :( > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-03 18:19 ` Etienne Carriere @ 2021-06-04 9:13 ` Sudeep Holla 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-04 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Etienne Carriere Cc: moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE, Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Sudeep Holla, Jerome Brunet, Florian Fainelli, Jim Quinlan On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 08:19:26PM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious. > > Yes it was :( > Oh well, not a surprise as I missed it too on Juno! Hopefully YAML schema must catch it in future. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node 2021-06-01 22:51 [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node Sudeep Holla 2021-06-01 22:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: " Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:27 ` Sudeep Holla 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Sudeep Holla @ 2021-06-02 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Cc: Cristian Marussi, Kevin Hilman, Neil Armstrong, Jerome Brunet On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:51:24PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and > the OS should be compatible with one of the following: > - amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem > - amlogic,meson-axg-scp-shmem > - arm,juno-scp-shmem > - arm,scp-shmem > Add the check for the same while parsing the node before fetching the memory > regions. > Ignore this patch, sent a wrong version. This breaks build... > Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> > Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> > Cc: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c > index d0dee37ad522..0fb4fe53523d 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c > @@ -897,6 +897,13 @@ static const struct of_device_id legacy_scpi_of_match[] = { > {}, > }; > > +static const struct of_device_id shmem_of_match[] = { > + { .compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem", }, > + { .compatible = "amlogic,meson-axg-scp-shmem", }, > + { .compatible = "arm,juno-scp-shmem", }, > + { .compatible = "arm,scp-shmem", }, > + { } > +}; > static int scpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > int count, idx, ret; > @@ -933,6 +940,9 @@ static int scpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct mbox_client *cl = &pchan->cl; > struct device_node *shmem = of_parse_phandle(np, "shmem", idx); > > + if (!of_match_device(shmem_of_match, shmem)) This must be of_match_node > + return -ENXIO; > + > ret = of_address_to_resource(shmem, 0, &res); > of_node_put(shmem); > if (ret) { > -- > 2.25.1 > -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-06-04 9:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-06-01 22:51 [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node Sudeep Holla 2021-06-01 22:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: " Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:29 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:33 ` Etienne Carriere 2021-06-02 7:36 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:44 ` Etienne Carriere 2021-06-02 7:53 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-03 17:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2021-06-03 17:20 ` Florian Fainelli 2021-06-03 17:45 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-03 17:42 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-03 18:19 ` Etienne Carriere 2021-06-04 9:13 ` Sudeep Holla 2021-06-02 7:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_scpi: " Sudeep Holla
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).