From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (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 7BDE942BE0 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 21:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b="S4R2zfLx" Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF80E9E; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 14:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0279862.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 395Lk9ID008481; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 21:51:31 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=qcppdkim1; bh=Viu3LjCg+nNUsV+HufaTsTHKmI5wxtsYvzyN9kVT2XI=; b=S4R2zfLxczirmvgMYFY1qLQ8rFmAj1CsN0x0FWPYn52yfthFC4ake9hYYs+p6eHQQRyI XdDCDdStD/OrgADASq3qrrCsH+4aGu7X59sXv7y3Cgut1Kx8N/iUxb24Yoc6L/uphqAx xJ8B0molGCpUBxpH7urvtehuO+IWkDPTtMQFWPthA9w2bqSHwO4IPD+aTBjsQludXR8F rD88RzCeFKe21yVrr2449DGD0OiltX8Ewa5qVvf9i6VM+JkeDZ12BBrIvm0mN0zs/dRW h1x2tX1kXC5YDI2pqJrwXxRYaoDYjrUglqCB/+MCcjCQ/HgFKxWJospG3ad8043Zz/eF iw== Received: from nalasppmta05.qualcomm.com (Global_NAT1.qualcomm.com [129.46.96.20]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3th8e1v0hu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 05 Oct 2023 21:51:30 +0000 Received: from nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com (nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com [10.47.97.35]) by NALASPPMTA05.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 395LpT2R011848 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 5 Oct 2023 21:51:29 GMT Received: from [10.110.20.163] (10.80.80.8) by nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.97.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.30; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 14:51:29 -0700 Message-ID: <2c196f9a-b61e-914b-1999-e9e82d16dc6e@quicinc.com> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 14:51:28 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] dt-bindings: arm: Add new compatible for smc/hvc transport for SCMI To: Sudeep Holla CC: , , , , , , , , , References: <20230718160833.36397-1-quic_nkela@quicinc.com> <20230911194359.27547-1-quic_nkela@quicinc.com> <20230911194359.27547-4-quic_nkela@quicinc.com> <20231003104404.o7yxg3y7dn7uhrq4@bogus> <7c871b23-5544-6604-257d-f0c8fd5afd06@quicinc.com> <20231004155310.zqwlj6boy65atoyq@bogus> Content-Language: en-US From: Nikunj Kela In-Reply-To: <20231004155310.zqwlj6boy65atoyq@bogus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.52.223.231) To nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.97.35) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 3IJBeV3tF0Is9MaS0KLzcGoF_PMa2-QG X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 3IJBeV3tF0Is9MaS0KLzcGoF_PMa2-QG X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.267,Aquarius:18.0.980,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-10-05_16,2023-10-05_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2309180000 definitions=main-2310050166 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On 10/4/2023 8:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:59:45AM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: >> On 10/3/2023 3:44 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 12:43:58PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>>> Introduce compatible "qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem" for SCMI smc/hvc >>>> transport channel for Qualcomm virtual platforms. >>>> The compatible mandates a shared memory channel. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela >>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski >>>> --- >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml >>>> index 8d54ea768d38..4090240f45b1 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml >>>> @@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ properties: >>>> - description: SCMI compliant firmware with OP-TEE transport >>>> items: >>>> - const: linaro,scmi-optee >>>> + - description: SCMI compliant firmware with Qualcomm hvc/shmem transport >>>> + items: >>>> + - const: qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem >>> Can it be simply "qcom,scmi-smc" for 2 reasons ? >>> 1. We don't support SMC/HVC without shmem, so what is your argument to add >>> '-shmem' in the compatible here ? >> In our platforms, there are multiple ways to allocate memory. One is >> preallocated shmem as used here, another is dynamically by hypervisor APIs. >> shmem was to just to indicate it is preallocated. >> > Let us keep it without shmem. If it is dynamically allocated, you must not > need another compatible as you can check it at the runtime. > >>> 2. The exact conduit(SMC/HVC) used is detected runtime, so I prefer to keep >>> '-smc' instead of '-hvc' in the compatible just to avoid giving an illusion >>> that HVC is the conduit chosen here based on the compatible. It can be true >>> for other reason but I don't want to mislead here by using HVC. >> IUUC, currently, conduit comes from PSCI dt node. We have been using smc for >> PSCI but want to use hvc here. That being said, I am fine to explore if we >> can change PSCI to use hvc too. >> > I think only OPTEE has explicit conduit other than PSCI and it is continued > for legacy/compatibility reasons IIUC and IIRC. Anything else depends on > the conduit used by PSCI to be consistent. So yes you need to use what the > PSCI conduit is and you don't need the extra information from the DT either > as new property or in the compatible. Ok, will use conduit then. Thanks! >