From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 213CFC54FB3 for ; Thu, 29 May 2025 15:18:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=j82cCYPndSZwfBmjPdJciyIu+NtE/P/9II4fvOfF44M=; b=yaOSun8RDGxpjErH2MTeDnscVv UnLVu/yttYYWl/qMjq/ejkiONvTvNau0dGNyPl9nq/7nZLKMyeiFBZ+GDgXxHFcvheYIGEVu79ooJ PQPcMtijlacwQbvX7iCGZrJrvDkXdesmwyeM9HD8zU40k8swcBaxOh+DCcWKYT/yw6KgxEuBhN3Lh x88uldS7ABI/sfvItRDqyVDlePtGSBtuJLt4QexfjmFQFBOfQB/WNSbwShPgarQNy/Rba6Hxaocg7 fJ9V8JQCusaXEeR4nEbxUJJ0SQNS7ycdBt4QlBLrxh0OAiBP3ApQmnGiwYo063UnJyMUixEShg3oB JugBc+gw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uKf1a-0000000G2yF-0uaZ; Thu, 29 May 2025 15:18:30 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uKe8G-0000000FxJa-0ckj for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 29 May 2025 14:21:20 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B86614BA; Thu, 29 May 2025 14:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4D2DC4CEE7; Thu, 29 May 2025 14:21:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1748528479; bh=myGypAtrlqF5QAHUeHQu/mXkeB8quQt8Js7lwyNSDAU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eJLh73X4YcITKyQPqx52wB2t0hNu4C5ASGe6s0sIXIMoBYcwNXk9FD4mWCp+2lHMx wdcq1dR2LIxZ7Cw3OrugA4pn3fMloQ4lfhE7uVYI0+bVEWgpjh8YW2gZbfIEfggN6N pogU96zX/N20nG58C5KGWM9x8w/iujRuxx4wIer2H4FAdPXIKsIFUga4dnPZ86tw31 /q7Pf0BHm6agrKIzDxd6a6m8OfddVtJMxLUdeEiz1p190oL7VETrlZtq50s7rCJD14 PHNsR8YAB4RaKJzQEWulTcnYRQ7t+MmO/WR7PXq1bQngU5q8g0wS6Ktrvd8CmPl3XG JXrEUTpIl7iAw== Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 16:21:10 +0200 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Peter Maydell Cc: Marc Zyngier , Thomas Gleixner , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , andre.przywara@arm.com, Arnd Bergmann , Sascha Bischoff , Timothy Hayes , "Liam R. Howlett" , Mark Rutland , Jiri Slaby , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/26] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add Arm GICv5 Message-ID: References: <20250513-gicv5-host-v4-0-b36e9b15a6c3@kernel.org> <20250513-gicv5-host-v4-1-b36e9b15a6c3@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 02:17:26PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 13:44, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > [+Andre, Peter] > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 07:47:54PM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > + reg: > > > + minItems: 1 > > > + items: > > > + - description: IRS control frame > > > > I came across it while testing EL3 firmware, raising the topic for > > discussion. > > > > The IRS (and the ITS) has a config frame (need to patch the typo > > s/control/config, already done) per interrupt domain supported, that is, > > it can have up to 4 config frames: > > > > - EL3 > > - Secure > > - Realm > > - Non-Secure > > > > The one described in this binding is the non-secure one. > > > > IIUC, everything described in the DT represents the non-secure address > > space. > > The dt bindings do allow for describing Secure-world devices: > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/secure.txt has the > details. We use this in QEMU so we can provide a DTB to > guest EL3 firmware that tells it where the hardware is > (and which EL3 can then pass on to an NS kernel). It would > be helpful for the GICv5 binding to be defined in a way that > we can do this for a GICv5 system too. > > > Two questions: > > > > - I don't have to spell out the IRS/ITS config frame (and SETLPI, by > > the way) as non-secure, since that's implicit, is that correct ? > > Do you want the DT binding to handle the case of "CPU and GIC do not > implement EL3, and the only implemented security state is Secure" > without the kernel needing to do something different from "ditto ditto > but the only implemented security state is Nonsecure" ? Not sure I follow you here sorry :) > (Currently booting.html says you must be in NS, so we effectively > say we don't support booting on this particular unicorn :-) > But the secure.txt bindings envisage "kernel got booted in S", > mostly for the benefit of aarch32.) > > > - How can the schema describe, if present, EL3, Secure and Realm frames ? > > The tempting thing to do is to have regs[] list the frames > in some given order, but the spec makes them not simple > supersets, allowing all of: > * NS > * S > * NS, S, EL3 > * NS, Realm, EL3 > * NS, Realm, S, EL3 > > secure.txt says: > # The general principle of the naming scheme for Secure world bindings > # is that any property that needs a different value in the Secure world > # can be supported by prefixing the property name with "secure-". So for > # instance "secure-foo" would override "foo". > > So maybe we could have > reg : the NS frame(s) > secure-reg : the S frame(s) > realm-reg : the Realm frame(s) > root-reg : the EL3 frame(s) > > ?? I assume someone has to write the root/realm binding extensions. In Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/secure.txt I don't think that reg is a contemplated property - I don't know if the list of properties is up-to-date. If what you suggest is OK, is it really needed to add the {secure/realm/root}-reg property to this binding ? Or implicitly a, say, realm-reg property is allowed using the yet-to-be-written realm.txt rules ? This would also slightly change the "required" properties, a "reg" property would not be required if eg the GIC does not implement a NS interrupt domain (but we would require a secure-reg if it implements a secure interrupt domain). I am making this up, obviously, I don't know what's best to do here. Lorenzo