From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org (mout-p-101.mailbox.org [80.241.56.151]) (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 AF97A2E62C4; Sun, 7 Dec 2025 09:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.151 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765099356; cv=none; b=WHBLHIrDapE229DHxS4rZfpxuFVqMZoOGh0SxgfUpo/7LdrW8JnV+ACV7x/i6BD/6vB4TOmuqCoIknWqW+776DT1wsZ2iz4Dh7k4eoePUdb5tCU74dutwNCVGh694bZDOvLF6BDccKtCdlQVgbvO2JliWt0NQ5+QUo8lSClEmdA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765099356; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MxiJQYTjIgbG0iYddWjMMCEaWbAqLdWQR3bV3ghU50U=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=BVXp1CrYQYnH6r4gUFLd5YlG27fbPy8KyiFZrzm4r5Vpe0xanofIWt3XG7Q7tXmBqZbz2/QHtV28lrtvtV3wgAAjqhDU1wS5VhOxftjaX08Kq0fyjgRcv7dSNXAqKeIMY9bZO1b42kBG9QbIczCASKProrGswc+t/euBTshIZGU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b=MMLNuu8L; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.151 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="MMLNuu8L" Received: from smtp102.mailbox.org (smtp102.mailbox.org [10.196.197.102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4dPKQ92X7Rz9shs; Sun, 7 Dec 2025 10:22:25 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1765099345; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Kc45u/PDfej0xIwt4rw4xQz4SHHoHsBqpxhcRb94zqE=; b=MMLNuu8Lk5Tv9OLVpZ16VNPP7nHspLW+/67gHz3VYmRLk6l9+iZlNkBsh7oAGq6C2PnShJ PJTDYPYVTjRbE8991L11HyA2hb/2YAt00iUSySH227WghAz18mRfZUKVYNQZMicalXi+ig W5AJLMgMTa/gpMyjDyaCNcxViINGJk4qsB69/b7Wff9jT5u4WBUxlJo+rHfYqbQiews0DH TjG+2m91uQdRhug4AuloJTvuh78me0BKw6E42RjMurtQ8v3aQ0QRuFoG2/QMQ14Ogwqs6A 4ClVeWEwSapTIbqfWrf/qaIHEAen0J9VGnn2+Bbr8XKsavjdMQW7/8dfWBt6Qg== Message-ID: <06fc0557-6b7c-4092-aeec-e3e16bab2d72@mailbox.org> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 10:16:36 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Document arm,poll-transport property To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Cristian Marussi , arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, Conor Dooley , Florian Fainelli , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Rob Herring , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org References: <5ae0a793-d3e7-45d1-bf5c-3c46593d1824@mailbox.org> <20251202-evasive-neon-rhino-d2745e@sudeepholla> <66257fcf-9024-454f-b776-4ba584963ebe@mailbox.org> <8d773671-5e2e-4e21-ade6-2bf9a3b75066@mailbox.org> <20251203-thick-didactic-cockatoo-deaa1d@sudeepholla> <4ccbcffd-bcc7-478b-a525-a4a11e3092ee@mailbox.org> <20251204-calm-peacock-of-fantasy-6b8cbe@sudeepholla> <20251205-winged-quizzical-pigeon-ed692d@sudeepholla> Content-Language: en-US From: Marek Vasut In-Reply-To: <20251205-winged-quizzical-pigeon-ed692d@sudeepholla> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MBO-RS-ID: 14481eff2fad3e208d7 X-MBO-RS-META: 5eezd4rfgip53r7u7w31f16sqj41jq1e On 12/5/25 10:54 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: Hello Sudeep, >>>>> Also IIUC, the irq request happens >>>>> as part of channel startup and there are no explicit APIs for the mbox client >>>>> driver to control that. SCMI is mbox client in this case. >>>> >>>> Sure, but the mailbox driver has to make sure it is correctly demuxing the >>>> IRQs it handles and correctly sends received_data notifications to the right >>>> channel(s) . >>>> >>> >>> Agreed, but the concern is that if SCMI is forced to use polling when the >>> channel is opened, and IRQs are enabled by default with no way for SCMI to >>> disable them in polling mode, we could run into issues. >> >> This constellation seems odd -- if the channel can do IRQs, then this >> property should not be present in DT. >> > > Yes, but there is no way to validate or check this and that is the root > cause for all my worries. Should a configuration like that even be considered valid and relevant ? >>> I realise it’s a very >>> specific corner case, but every time I’ve assumed such scenarios wouldn’t >>> occur, we eventually ended up encountering them. So sorry if I am very >>> pedantic, but I prefer to start smaller and restrictive and expand if and >>> when necessary or required only. >> >> I don't think this case, where mailbox channel does IRQs and polling is >> enabled, can/should even be considered valid. Either the channel does not do >> IRQs and then it should do polling, or it does IRQs and then it should use >> IRQs, but not both. >> > > Yes ideally, but having loose ends like this binding which allows someone > to add it to their DT complicates though it is invalid. We have no way to > detect and I don't want to work around such configs in the future. If the DT is invalid, bad things happen, but I would argue that is then a DT bug and the DT should be fixed. [...] >>> Yes, that’s essential, because polling in an SMC context is meaningless in my >>> opinion. >> >> Maybe the "a2p" IRQ is also used for notifications from longer running >> operations ? >> > > Yes, it is some sort of work around some platforms implemented as by design > when the SMC returns, the synchronous commands must complete and it is had > to support async SCMI commands without platform specific interrupt(p2a). This > a2p is sort of completion interrupt for synchronous command. I assume the > platform may offload the task from secure f/w to something else otherwise > secure side needs to be given CPU cycles to complete which complicates this. > In short SMC is synchronous and if the execution returns from it in NS world, > the command is complete. Wouldn't polling still be useful for the async case , even in SMC setup? Note that the SMC setup does use shmem, and therefore can do polling on the shmem. >> [...] >> >>>>> Yes it can be minimalistic but not restrictive. As I already clearly mentioned >>>>> I don't see it makes any sense to enable this for SMC/OPTEE. Lets start with >>>>> just mailbox to start with and extend to other transports if and when needed. >>>>> It would be good to impose that restriction in the binding as well but that >>>>> is not a must IMO. I am fine if the bindings for whatever reasons(though I >>>>> don't see the need) to apply for any transport. >>>> So I should simply drop the smc.c changes , keep the rest, and send V2 ? >>> >>> Not just that. Unless DT maintainers oppose, I just want to keep this >>> new property valid only for mailbox transport(i.e. "arm,scmi" compatible >>> not otherwise) so that we can catch any other use in binding checks and >>> interested parties must discuss on the list and expand that if they require. >>> >>> Also we can explore if we can parse and scan this in mailbox transport for >>> now. >> I feel that this only adds more implementation complexity and makes the >> solution less generic, while it does win us very little in the end ? The >> generic solution implementation is actually easier to implement. > > Yes I want it less generic to start with. Why you want to start making > this workaround on your platform a generic implementation just because > the specification has provision for it ? Because this is generic kernel code, it seems counterintuitive to introduce less generic solution which requires more complex implementation. Since the DEN0056 specification states this mode of operation is supported, I also wouldn't call it a workaround.