From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
Cc: "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
"sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:27:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB44816D2E34BC89FAE9C4429188B10@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190909143230.48b1143f@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM
> SMC/HVC mailbox
>
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 03:12:29 -0500
> Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > 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.
>
> Why would this be SCMI specific and what is the problem with having this
> property?
> By the very nature of the SMC/HVC call you would expect to also pass
> parameters in registers. However this limits the amount of data you can push,
> so the option of reverting to a memory based payload sounds very
> reasonable.
> On the other hand *just* using memory complicates things, in case you have a
> very simple protocol. You would need a memory region shared between
> firmware and OS, which is not always easily possible on every platform. Also
> this doesn't scale easily with multiple mailboxes and channels. Passing
> parameters via registers is also naturally consistent, as there would be no
> races and no need for synchronisation with other cores or other users of the
> mailbox.
>
> So I clearly see the benefit of specifying *both* ways of payload transport.
> Given that this driver should be protocol agnostic, it makes a lot of sense to
> introduce both methods *now*, so in the future users can just use the register
> method, without extending the binding in a incompatible way later (earlier
> kernels would have the driver, but wouldn't know how to deal with this
> parameter).
Andre, thanks for your explanation.
Jassi, are you ok that this property "transport" is kept in V6?
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-11 2:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-28 3:02 [PATCH v5 0/2] mailbox: arm: introduce smc triggered mailbox Peng Fan
2019-08-28 3:02 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox Peng Fan
2019-08-28 13:58 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-08-30 2:47 ` Peng Fan
2019-08-30 5:58 ` Jassi Brar
2019-08-30 6:28 ` Peng Fan
2019-08-30 7:21 ` Jassi Brar
2019-08-30 7:37 ` Peng Fan
2019-08-30 7:52 ` Jassi Brar
2019-08-30 8:07 ` Peng Fan
2019-08-30 8:12 ` Jassi Brar
2019-08-30 8:28 ` Peng Fan
2019-09-09 13:32 ` Andre Przywara
2019-09-11 2:27 ` Peng Fan [this message]
2019-09-11 2:36 ` Jassi Brar
2019-09-11 11:42 ` Andre Przywara
2019-08-30 9:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-08-30 16:51 ` Jassi Brar
2019-08-30 9:30 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-08-30 9:40 ` Peng Fan
2019-09-02 13:39 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-02 14:20 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-09 15:42 ` Andre Przywara
2019-09-11 2:44 ` Jassi Brar
2019-09-11 15:03 ` Andre Przywara
2019-09-11 16:55 ` Jassi Brar
2019-09-12 3:05 ` Peng Fan
2019-08-28 3:03 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox Peng Fan
2019-08-28 14:02 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-08-30 2:50 ` Peng Fan
2019-09-09 15:42 ` Andre Przywara
2019-09-11 5:58 ` Peng Fan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AM0PR04MB44816D2E34BC89FAE9C4429188B10@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com \
--to=peng.fan@nxp.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=jassisinghbrar@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-imx@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).