From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32CC9647; Thu, 29 May 2025 13:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748524597; cv=none; b=hpu+7/UmjPV4YoHuHpSPV0Q4pscXmpS/+XGmelQnuNWoF9kz2bzI6uLP1uaU16VVrXZoe4D5So6rEHXiu9XbXwTd8tv/LeM75lj5/3pgyGLDnxJtl8WF4jXkrPMq+kiNp9Z87Bfuzx4Y5XGbHClG+Acnd0p1J/DYYz/H/tsYQ8c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748524597; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xkKd2cHk1cf4Qy841VN5k/WKdVh7gnj+gaE9jytpkNk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ayS6K1xhX/Zv8pBTXg5vSRGLv5suUO9c2eZ86fSM0TuNM7Q7Wq0czmzIyhA4ro+5my1AqbAEsNZq29ZJB4LWquAWz3w0Smmt5NteS752VHBg+bnidxUg2Rav3PWyQl9PdIPCenIHGoOfRaacJj+hQsLpyzF9vzf5NUxxqw4k5hE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VCNZ1FAy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VCNZ1FAy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E6D1C4CEE7; Thu, 29 May 2025 13:16:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1748524596; bh=xkKd2cHk1cf4Qy841VN5k/WKdVh7gnj+gaE9jytpkNk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VCNZ1FAy8MUohtLLaV44gqwnrFik752j5osN5fjTHMGtT9qHFSEAi83KPe3RpUshN nqfFRZzwJz1Je65+SS6T6hflk5GngvPcSWDOhxQaUjM6LvaezVxef8FWH6Bd8slDoL 0nuvceJWfXPXcLKfQj98TB0Bp+LdpO2mNpQjzHh/bRHTXrvX8DV10atLopNj3EJGvd /+7pJSL9tKH2tzRk8AzeP7jTNKjJvCUBPUygGPZK4HCjZwxi8C9OjXZSNMoQjnnv1w YoYvENXwjznj2VL1hs2ktvaCX1adX1VPwZPokaDZz8pKQNMEgizqTsuDtjeIaj4JiE ol3UYYZDaangQ== Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 08:16:34 -0500 From: Rob Herring To: Ricardo Neri Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , x86@kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Wei Liu , Dexuan Cui , Michael Kelley , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Saurabh Sengar , Chris Oo , linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ravi V. Shankar" , Ricardo Neri Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Wakeup Mailbox for Intel processors Message-ID: <20250529131634.GA2784667-robh@kernel.org> References: <20250506051610.GC25533@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> <20250506-pompous-meaty-crane-97efce@kuoka> <20250507032339.GA27243@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> <20250512153224.GA3377771-robh@kernel.org> <20250513221456.GA2794@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> <20250514154248.GA2375202-robh@kernel.org> <20250515035338.GA4955@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> <20250519152937.GA2227051-robh@kernel.org> <20250519175606.GA9693@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> <20250524155650.GA16942@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250524155650.GA16942@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 08:56:50AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:56:06AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:29:37AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 08:53:38PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 10:42:48AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 10:32:24AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 08:23:39PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 09:10:22AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 10:16:10PM GMT, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If this is a device, then compatibles specific to devices. You do not > > > > > > > > > > > get different rules than all other bindings... or this does not have to > > > > > > > > > > > be binding at all. Why standard reserved-memory does not work for here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you need compatible in the first place? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting something like this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved-memory { > > > > > > > > > > # address-cells = <2>; > > > > > > > > > > # size-cells = <1>; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wakeup_mailbox: wakeupmb@fff000 { > > > > > > > > > > reg = < 0x0 0xfff000 0x1000> > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and then reference to the reserved memory using the wakeup_mailbox > > > > > > > > > > phandle? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes just like every other, typical reserved memory block. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! I will take this approach and drop this patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is nothing else to this other than the reserved region, then > > > > > > > don't do this. Keep it like you had. There's no need for 2 nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback! > > > > > > > > > > > > I was planning to use one reserved-memory node and inside of it a child > > > > > > node to with a `reg` property to specify the location and size of the > > > > > > mailbox. I would reference to that subnode from the kernel code. > > > > > > > > > > > > IIUC, the reserved-memory node is only the container and the actual memory > > > > > > regions are expressed as child nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I had it like that before, but with a `compatible` property that I did not > > > > > > need. > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I missing anything? > > > > > > > > > > Without a compatible, how do you identify which reserved region is the > > > > > wakeup mailbox? > > > > > > > > I thought using a phandle to the wakeup_mailbox. Then I realized that the > > > > device nodes using the mailbox would be CPUs. They would need a `memory- > > > > region` property. This does not look right to me. > > > > > > That doesn't really make sense unless it's a memory region per CPU. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before you say node name, those are supposed to be > > > > > generic though we failed to enforce anything for /reserved-memory child > > > > > nodes. > > > > > > > > I see. Thanks for preventing me from doing this. > > > > > > > > Then the `compatible` property seems the way to go after all. > > > > > > > > This what motivated this patch in the first place. On further analysis, > > > > IIUC, defining bindings and schema is not needed, IMO, since the mailbox > > > > is already defined in the ACPI spec. No need to redefine. > > > > > > You lost me... > > > > > > You don't need to redefine the layout of the memory region as that's > > > defined already somewhere, > > > > Great! > > > > > but you do need to define where it is for DT. > > > And for that, you need a compatible. Do you know where it is in this > > > case? > > > > The compatible is not defined anywhere yet. Is a DT schema needed to > > document it? If yes, I am usure what to put in the description. We tried > > to not redefine the mailbox and refer to the ACPI spec. That was a NAK > > from Krzysztof [1]. > > > > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/r/624e1985-7dd2-4abe-a918-78cb43556967@kernel.org > > In summary, documenting the `compatible` property for the mailbox is > necessary. There is no need to redefine the malbox on a schema but > referring to the ACPI spec is not acceptable. There's the whole "DT bindings in ACPI systems" where ACPI tables contain compatibles and DT properties which I think is what Krzysztof was objecting to (and I do too). But this is a DT based system that implements a mailbox region defined in an ACPI spec. That is perfectly fine to refer to. > > What about referring in the schema to the Intel TDX Virtual Firmware Design > Guide[2]? It describes how firmware should implement the mailbox the section > 4.3.5. > > A mailbox with compatible = "intel,wakeup-mailbox" is implemented after the > guide that Intel published. Use whatever you think best describes the programming model of the region. Rob