From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
V11:
- Minor update: Replace arg_smccc64/32 with unsigned long arg_smccc[];
Hope this version is ok for everyone.
V10:
- Add R-b tag from Andre, Rob and Florian
- Two minor fixes
- Drop "are passed from consumers" in patch 1/2 per Andre's comments
- Drop interrupts.h in patch 2/2 per Andre's comments
V9:
- Add Florian's R-b tag in patch 1/2
- Mark arm,func-id as a required property per Andre's comments in patch 1/2.
- Make invoke_smc_mbox_fn as a private entry in a channal per Florian's
comments in pach 2/2
- Include linux/types.h in arm-smccc-mbox.h in patch 2/2
- Drop function_id from arm_smccc_mbox_cmd since func-id is from DT
in patch 2/2/.
V8:
Add missed arm-smccc-mbox.h
V7:
Typo fix
#mbox-cells changed to 0
Add a new header file arm-smccc-mbox.h
Use ARM_SMCCC_IS_64
Andre,
The function_id is still kept in arm_smccc_mbox_cmd, because arm,func-id
property is optional, so clients could pass function_id to mbox driver.
V6:
Switch to per-channel a mbox controller
Drop arm,num-chans, transports, method
Add arm,hvc-mbox compatible
Fix smc/hvc args, drop client id and use correct type.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11146641/
V5:
yaml fix
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11117741/
V4:
yaml fix for num-chans in patch 1/2.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11116521/
V3:
Drop interrupt
Introduce transports for mem/reg usage
Add chan-id for mem usage
Convert to yaml format
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11043541/
V2:
This is a modified version from Andre Przywara's patch series
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/812997/.
The modification are mostly:
Introduce arm,num-chans
Introduce arm_smccc_mbox_cmd
txdone_poll and txdone_irq are both set to false
arm,func-ids are kept, but as an optional property.
Rewords SCPI to SCMI, because I am trying SCMI over SMC, not SCPI.
Introduce interrupts notification.
[1] is a draft implementation of i.MX8MM SCMI ATF implementation that
use smc as mailbox, power/clk is included, but only part of clk has been
implemented to work with hardware, power domain only supports get name
for now.
The traditional Linux mailbox mechanism uses some kind of dedicated hardware
IP to signal a condition to some other processing unit, typically a dedicated
management processor.
This mailbox feature is used for instance by the SCMI protocol to signal a
request for some action to be taken by the management processor.
However some SoCs does not have a dedicated management core to provide
those services. In order to service TEE and to avoid linux shutdown
power and clock that used by TEE, need let firmware to handle power
and clock, the firmware here is ARM Trusted Firmware that could also
run SCMI service.
The existing SCMI implementation uses a rather flexible shared memory
region to communicate commands and their parameters, it still requires a
mailbox to actually trigger the action.
This patch series provides a Linux mailbox compatible service which uses
smc calls to invoke firmware code, for instance taking care of SCMI requests.
The actual requests are still communicated using the standard SCMI way of
shared memory regions, but a dedicated mailbox hardware IP can be replaced via
this new driver.
This simple driver uses the architected SMC calling convention to trigger
firmware services, also allows for using "HVC" calls to call into hypervisors
or firmware layers running in the EL2 exception level.
Patch 1 contains the device tree binding documentation, patch 2 introduces
the actual mailbox driver.
Please note that this driver just provides a generic mailbox mechanism,
It could support synchronous TX/RX, or synchronous TX with asynchronous
RX. And while providing SCMI services was the reason for this exercise,
this driver is in no way bound to this use case, but can be used generically
where the OS wants to signal a mailbox condition to firmware or a
hypervisor.
Also the driver is in no way meant to replace any existing firmware
interface, but actually to complement existing interfaces.
[1] https://github.com/MrVan/arm-trusted-firmware/tree/scmi
Peng Fan (2):
dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox
mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
.../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml | 96 +++++++++++++
drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 7 +
drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 +
drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c | 156 +++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h | 17 +++
5 files changed, 278 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml
create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
create mode 100644 include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h
--
2.16.4
From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data
via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver
is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it
returns execution to the non-secure world again.
An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such
a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
interface.
Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/812999/
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 7 ++
drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 +
drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c | 156 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h | 17 ++++
4 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
create mode 100644 include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
index ab4eb750bbdd..7707ee26251a 100644
--- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
@@ -16,6 +16,13 @@ config ARM_MHU
The controller has 3 mailbox channels, the last of which can be
used in Secure mode only.
+config ARM_SMC_MBOX
+ tristate "Generic ARM smc mailbox"
+ depends on OF && HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
+ help
+ Generic mailbox driver which uses ARM smc calls to call into
+ firmware for triggering mailboxes.
+
config IMX_MBOX
tristate "i.MX Mailbox"
depends on ARCH_MXC || COMPILE_TEST
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
index c22fad6f696b..93918a84c91b 100644
--- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MAILBOX_TEST) += mailbox-test.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_MHU) += arm_mhu.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMC_MBOX) += arm-smc-mailbox.o
+
obj-$(CONFIG_IMX_MBOX) += imx-mailbox.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ARMADA_37XX_RWTM_MBOX) += armada-37xx-rwtm-mailbox.o
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..223d46fe6513
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2016,2017 ARM Ltd.
+ * Copyright 2019 NXP
+ */
+
+#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
+#include <linux/device.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
+#include <linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+
+typedef unsigned long (smc_mbox_fn)(unsigned int, unsigned long,
+ unsigned long, unsigned long,
+ unsigned long, unsigned long,
+ unsigned long);
+
+struct arm_smc_chan_data {
+ unsigned int function_id;
+ smc_mbox_fn *invoke_smc_mbox_fn;
+};
+
+static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void *data)
+{
+ struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data = link->con_priv;
+ struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd *cmd = data;
+ unsigned long ret;
+
+ ret = chan_data->invoke_smc_mbox_fn(chan_data->function_id,
+ cmd->args_smccc[0],
+ cmd->args_smccc[1],
+ cmd->args_smccc[2],
+ cmd->args_smccc[3],
+ cmd->args_smccc[4],
+ cmd->args_smccc[5]);
+
+ mbox_chan_received_data(link, (void *)ret);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static unsigned long __invoke_fn_hvc(unsigned int function_id,
+ unsigned long arg0, unsigned long arg1,
+ unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
+ unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
+{
+ struct arm_smccc_res res;
+
+ arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, arg0, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
+ arg5, 0, &res);
+ return res.a0;
+}
+
+static unsigned long __invoke_fn_smc(unsigned int function_id,
+ unsigned long arg0, unsigned long arg1,
+ unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
+ unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
+{
+ struct arm_smccc_res res;
+
+ arm_smccc_smc(function_id, arg0, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
+ arg5, 0, &res);
+ return res.a0;
+}
+
+static const struct mbox_chan_ops arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops = {
+ .send_data = arm_smc_send_data,
+};
+
+static struct mbox_chan *
+arm_smc_mbox_of_xlate(struct mbox_controller *mbox,
+ const struct of_phandle_args *sp)
+{
+ return mbox->chans;
+}
+
+static int arm_smc_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+ struct mbox_controller *mbox;
+ struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data;
+ int ret;
+
+ mbox = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!mbox)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ mbox->of_xlate = arm_smc_mbox_of_xlate;
+ mbox->num_chans = 1;
+ mbox->chans = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox->chans), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!mbox->chans)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ chan_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chan_data), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!chan_data)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ ret = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "arm,func-id",
+ &chan_data->function_id);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "arm,smc-mbox"))
+ chan_data->invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_smc;
+ else
+ chan_data->invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_hvc;
+
+
+ mbox->chans->con_priv = chan_data;
+
+ mbox->txdone_poll = false;
+ mbox->txdone_irq = false;
+ mbox->ops = &arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops;
+ mbox->dev = dev;
+
+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mbox);
+
+ ret = devm_mbox_controller_register(dev, mbox);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ dev_info(dev, "ARM SMC mailbox enabled.\n");
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int arm_smc_mbox_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct mbox_controller *mbox = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+
+ mbox_controller_unregister(mbox);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct of_device_id arm_smc_mbox_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "arm,smc-mbox", },
+ { .compatible = "arm,hvc-mbox", },
+ {},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smc_mbox_of_match);
+
+static struct platform_driver arm_smc_mbox_driver = {
+ .driver = {
+ .name = "arm-smc-mbox",
+ .of_match_table = arm_smc_mbox_of_match,
+ },
+ .probe = arm_smc_mbox_probe,
+ .remove = arm_smc_mbox_remove,
+};
+module_platform_driver(arm_smc_mbox_driver);
+
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Peng Fan <[email protected]>");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Generic ARM smc mailbox driver");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
diff --git a/include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h b/include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..244e09598c10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+
+#ifndef _LINUX_ARM_SMCCC_MBOX_H_
+#define _LINUX_ARM_SMCCC_MBOX_H_
+
+#include <linux/types.h>
+
+/**
+ * struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd - ARM SMCCC message structure
+ * @args_smccc: actual usage of registers is up to the protocol
+ * (within the SMCCC limits)
+ */
+struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd {
+ unsigned long args_smccc[6];
+};
+
+#endif /* _LINUX_ARM_SMCCC_MBOX_H_ */
--
2.16.4
(+Viresh,Arnd)
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 10:14:43AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
>
> This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data
> via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver
> is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it
> returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such
> a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> interface.
>
I would like to know all the use-cases for this driver ? Is this only for
SCMI or will this get used with other protocols on the top. I assume the
latter and hence it is preferred to keep this as a mailbox driver.
I am not against this approach but the reason I ask is to avoid duplication.
Viresh has suggested abstraction of transport from SCMI driver to enable
other transports[1]. Couple of transports that I am aware of is this SMC/HVC
and the new(still in-concept) SPCI.
So I am looking for opinions on that approach. Please feel free to comment
here or as part of that patch.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5c545c2866ba075ddb44907940a1dae1d823b8a1.1575019719.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
>
> (+Viresh,Arnd)
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 10:14:43AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> >
> > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted
> > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox
> > receiver is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data
> > when it returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which
> > such a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> > interface.
> >
>
> I would like to know all the use-cases for this driver ?
Currently my usecase is SCMI.
Is this only for SCMI or
> will this get used with other protocols on the top. I assume the latter and
> hence it is preferred to keep this as a mailbox driver.
>
> I am not against this approach but the reason I ask is to avoid duplication.
> Viresh has suggested abstraction of transport from SCMI driver to enable
> other transports[1]. Couple of transports that I am aware of is this SMC/HVC
> and the new(still in-concept) SPCI.
>
> So I am looking for opinions on that approach. Please feel free to comment
> here or as part of that patch.
If we want to use SMC as transports, smc mailbox or smc transports(non-mailbox)
could be used. Both ok for me, smc transports just need write a new driver
under scmi folder.
I left the decision to you(scmi maintainer) and Jassi(mailbox maintainer),
Just hope the smc/hvc used as transports could be landed in upstream soon.
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>
> [1]
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.ke
> rnel.org%2Flkml%2F5c545c2866ba075ddb44907940a1dae1d823b8a1.15750
> 19719.git.viresh.kumar%40linaro.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40n
> xp.com%7C06edb0c37371419db3cd08d777e66780%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa9
> 2cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C637109703766574454&sdata=nInLSUu
> mwzBvl%2FcmckQkpZbJT4JAtVkzr1TSWkmz6qo%3D&reserved=0
Hello Peng and all,
> From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
>
> This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data
> via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver
> is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it
> returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such
> a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> interface.
>
> Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/812999/
>
> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
I've successfully tested your change on my board. It is a stm32mp1
with TZ secure hardening and I run an OP-TEE firmware (possibly a TF-A
sp_min) with a SCMI server for clock and reset. Upstream in progress.
The platform uses 2 instances of your SMC based mailbox device driver
(2 mailboxes). Works nice with your change.
You can add my T-b tag: Tested-by: Etienne Carriere
<[email protected]>
FYI, I'll (hopefully soon) post a change proposal in U-Boot ML for an
equvalent 'SMC based mailbox' driver and SCMI agent protocol/device
drivers for clock and reset controllers.
I'm also working on getting this SCMI server upstream in TF-A and
OP-TEE. Your SMC based mailbox driver is a valuable notification
scheme for our SCMI services support in Arm TZ secure world.
Regards,
Etienne
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
>
> Hello Peng and all,
>
>
> > From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> >
> > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted
> > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox
> > receiver is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data
> > when it returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which
> > such a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> > interface.
> >
> > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch
> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore
> > .kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F812999%2F&data=02%7C01%7
> Cpeng.fa
> >
> n%40nxp.com%7C735cc6cd00404082bf8c08d79f67b93a%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> c6fa92cd
> >
> 99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637153140140878278&sdata=m0lcAEIr0ZP
> tyPHorSW
> > NYgjfI5p0genJLlhqHMIHBg0%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
>
> I've successfully tested your change on my board. It is a stm32mp1 with TZ
> secure hardening and I run an OP-TEE firmware (possibly a TF-A
> sp_min) with a SCMI server for clock and reset. Upstream in progress.
> The platform uses 2 instances of your SMC based mailbox device driver
> (2 mailboxes). Works nice with your change.
>
> You can add my T-b tag: Tested-by: Etienne Carriere
> <[email protected]>
Thanks, but this patch has been dropped.
Per Sudeep, we all use smc transport, not smc mailbox ,
I'll post patch in a few days based on the transport split patch.
>
> FYI, I'll (hopefully soon) post a change proposal in U-Boot ML for an equvalent
> 'SMC based mailbox' driver and SCMI agent protocol/device drivers for clock
> and reset controllers.
Great to know you did scmi agent code in U-Boot. Do you have some public repo
for access?
Thanks,
Peng.
> I'm also working on getting this SCMI server upstream in TF-A and OP-TEE.
> Your SMC based mailbox driver is a valuable notification scheme for our SCMI
> services support in Arm TZ secure world.
>
> Regards,
> Etienne
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:58:12PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
> >
> > Hello Peng and all,
> > > From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted
> > > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox
> > > receiver is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data
> > > when it returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> > > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> > > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> > > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which
> > > such a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> > > interface.
> > >
[...]
> > I've successfully tested your change on my board. It is a stm32mp1 with TZ
> > secure hardening and I run an OP-TEE firmware (possibly a TF-A
> > sp_min) with a SCMI server for clock and reset. Upstream in progress.
> > The platform uses 2 instances of your SMC based mailbox device driver
> > (2 mailboxes). Works nice with your change.
> >
> > You can add my T-b tag: Tested-by: Etienne Carriere
> > <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks, but this patch has been dropped.
>
> Per Sudeep, we all use smc transport, not smc mailbox ,
>
Yes, I asked if there are any other users of SMC mailbox other than
SCMI. We are planning to separate the transport from the SCMI driver[1]
to enable transport other than mailbox. SMC can be one of them and the
other one planned is virtio. Please feel free to add to the discussion
or review.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f170b33989b426ac095952634fcd1bf45b86a7a3.1580208329.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Hello Peng,
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 13:58, Peng Fan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
> >
> > Hello Peng and all,
> >
> >
> > > From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted
> > > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox
> > > receiver is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data
> > > when it returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> > > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> > > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> > > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which
> > > such a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> > > interface.
> > >
> > > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch
> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore
> > > .kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F812999%2F&data=02%7C01%7
> > Cpeng.fa
> > >
> > n%40nxp.com%7C735cc6cd00404082bf8c08d79f67b93a%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> > c6fa92cd
> > >
> > 99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637153140140878278&sdata=m0lcAEIr0ZP
> > tyPHorSW
> > > NYgjfI5p0genJLlhqHMIHBg0%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> >
> > I've successfully tested your change on my board. It is a stm32mp1 with TZ
> > secure hardening and I run an OP-TEE firmware (possibly a TF-A
> > sp_min) with a SCMI server for clock and reset. Upstream in progress.
> > The platform uses 2 instances of your SMC based mailbox device driver
> > (2 mailboxes). Works nice with your change.
> >
> > You can add my T-b tag: Tested-by: Etienne Carriere
> > <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks, but this patch has been dropped.
>
> Per Sudeep, we all use smc transport, not smc mailbox ,
> I'll post patch in a few days based on the transport split patch.
Ok, i am syncing.
> >
> > FYI, I'll (hopefully soon) post a change proposal in U-Boot ML for an equvalent
> > 'SMC based mailbox' driver and SCMI agent protocol/device drivers for clock
> > and reset controllers.
>
> Great to know you did scmi agent code in U-Boot. Do you have some public repo
> for access?
I've created a P-R on my github repo to share until I submit to u-boot:
https://github.com/etienne-lms/u-boot/pull/3
I guess I will change my u-boot proposal and get a SMC SCMI transport
outside of the mailbox framework.
Regards,
Etienne
>
> Thanks,
> Peng.
>
> > I'm also working on getting this SCMI server upstream in TF-A and OP-TEE.
> > Your SMC based mailbox driver is a valuable notification scheme for our SCMI
> > services support in Arm TZ secure world.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Etienne
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 04:01:07PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote:
> Hello Peng,
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 13:58, Peng Fan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
> > >
> > > Hello Peng and all,
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted
> > > > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox
> > > > receiver is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data
> > > > when it returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> > > > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> > > > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> > > > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which
> > > > such a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> > > > interface.
> > > >
> > > > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch
> > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore
> > > > .kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F812999%2F&data=02%7C01%7
> > > Cpeng.fa
> > > >
> > > n%40nxp.com%7C735cc6cd00404082bf8c08d79f67b93a%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> > > c6fa92cd
> > > >
> > > 99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637153140140878278&sdata=m0lcAEIr0ZP
> > > tyPHorSW
> > > > NYgjfI5p0genJLlhqHMIHBg0%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > I've successfully tested your change on my board. It is a stm32mp1 with TZ
> > > secure hardening and I run an OP-TEE firmware (possibly a TF-A
> > > sp_min) with a SCMI server for clock and reset. Upstream in progress.
> > > The platform uses 2 instances of your SMC based mailbox device driver
> > > (2 mailboxes). Works nice with your change.
> > >
> > > You can add my T-b tag: Tested-by: Etienne Carriere
> > > <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thanks, but this patch has been dropped.
> >
> > Per Sudeep, we all use smc transport, not smc mailbox ,
> > I'll post patch in a few days based on the transport split patch.
>
> Ok, i am syncing.
>
> > >
> > > FYI, I'll (hopefully soon) post a change proposal in U-Boot ML for an equvalent
> > > 'SMC based mailbox' driver and SCMI agent protocol/device drivers for clock
> > > and reset controllers.
> >
> > Great to know you did scmi agent code in U-Boot. Do you have some public repo
> > for access?
>
> I've created a P-R on my github repo to share until I submit to u-boot:
> https://github.com/etienne-lms/u-boot/pull/3
>
> I guess I will change my u-boot proposal and get a SMC SCMI transport
> outside of the mailbox framework.
>
Unless U-boot has mailbox framework or you are importing it, it's better
to keep U-boot implementation simple as SMC transport which I think you
already do. I had a look at the implementation[1], it shouldn't change
much other than if you prefer not to use "mailbox" terminology. I don't
understand the reason for even using the mailbox term there in the first
place.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://github.com/etienne-lms/u-boot/pull/3/commits/34812c9175436f6a082f77347c5384393757c233