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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A3AC4321E for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:15:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231354AbiK2MPl (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2022 07:15:41 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44292 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231560AbiK2MPi (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2022 07:15:38 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3069C5CD06 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 04:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802E4D6E; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 04:15:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from e120937-lin (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A14C23F73D; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 04:15:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:15:33 +0000 From: Cristian Marussi To: Ludvig =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E4rsson?= Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "jens.wiklander@linaro.org" , "sumit.garg@linaro.org" , "etienne.carriere@linaro.org" , "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" , "sudeep.holla@arm.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Resolve dependency with TEE subsystem Message-ID: References: <20221111095313.2010815-1-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <20221111143800.k7xje6g23ujefnye@bogus> <20221114102650.qwkaxtnstujaiu6u@bogus> <0b24b15bfee6d97d23caf0225d264c14e0ed48f1.camel@axis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <0b24b15bfee6d97d23caf0225d264c14e0ed48f1.camel@axis.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:49:10AM +0000, Ludvig Pärsson wrote: > On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 17:48 +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:47:25PM +0000, Ludvig Pärsson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 12:29 +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > Hi Ludvig, > > > > following up on the issues raised by this thread and a few proposals > > that > > were flying around (online and offline), in the past days I took the > > chance > > to have a go at a substantial rework of the init/probe sequences in > > the SCMI > > core to address the issue you faced with SCMI TEE transport while > > trying to > > untangle a bit the SCMI core startup sequences (... while also > > possibly not > > breaking it all :P...) > > > > In a nutshell, building on an idea from an offline chat with Etienne > > ad > > Sudeep, now the SCMI bus initialization is split on its own and > > initialized at > > subsys_initcall level, while the SCMI core stack, including the the > > SCMI TEE > > transport layer, is moved at module_init layer together with the SCMI > > driver users. > > > > This *should* theoretically solve your issue ... (and it seems like > > all the > > rest it's still working :P) ... so I was wondering if you can give a > > go > > at the following pachset on your setup: > > > > https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-cm/-/commits/scmi_rework_stack_init_draft/ > > > > ... note that this is just a draft at the moment, which has undergone > > a > > reasonable amount of testing on mailbox/virtio transports only in > > both a > > SCMI builtin and/or modules scenario, but is no where ready for > > review. > > > > The top three patches are really what you need BUT these are probably > > tightly bound to that bunch of early fixes you can see in the > > branch...so in other words better if you pick the whole branch for > > testing :D > > > > Once you've confirmed me that this solves your issues I'll start the > > final cleanup for posting in the next cycle. > > > > Thanks, > > Cristian > > Hi Cristian, Hi, > > I tried my best to get the patchset to work somehow on my version of > the kernel, and it seems to be working great. I played around with some > things, for example changing order of some drivers that were on the > same init levels, and it still worked. Only tested with voltage domain > protocol and optee transport. > > Thanks for your great work! > Great, thanks for testing it. I'll post shortly a cleaned up series aiming at the next release cycle. Thanks, Cristian