Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: GnzOEVjkuiEQXiUQqjrgnYwZqa3R0ryCx064clUnyv2IBy8kLq0L00DH6bF49OopUm/AkTtYyR
 qOvfVrb7i0+w==
IronPort-SDR: i/FAwqn6mQcDVNwTNQo1ZPyUsFNo8bNK44NhJq0QPcmArDfLo44GHNN1eyDzDF3mOD1+xMqsbt
 WU1VhRCMoepQ==
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Pass shmem address to SMCCC call
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@linux.intel.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
        "Paul J. Murphy" <paul.j.murphy@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@intel.com>
References: <20200715165518.57558-1-daniele.alessandrelli@linux.intel.com>
 <5f74221b-aec7-7715-19d1-5cbb406f1bdc@gmail.com>
 <b4d22e4a5154a9ad4c224eb2dfaeb61ed1680834.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <faa53c11-3c72-9b9b-85ad-9d234f373b4d@gmail.com>
From:   Paul Murphy <paul.j.murphy@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <1117fc3b-3c35-c66c-bf73-cb879a08bde5@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:00:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <faa53c11-3c72-9b9b-85ad-9d234f373b4d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Florian


On 7/16/20 20:57, Florian Fainelli wrote:

>>>
>>> Given that the kernel must somehow reserve this memory as a shared
>>> memory area for obvious reasons, and the trusted firmware must also
>>> ensure it treats this memory region with specific permissions in its
>>> translation regime, does it really make sense to give that much
>>> flexibility?
>>
>> Well, the trusted firmware might reserve a bigger region to be used for
>> other service as well. In other words, the MMU of TF-A is not necessary
>> specifically set up for this region, but, possibly, for a bigger
>> general shared region.
> 
> But presumably the Linux shared memory area should be mapped in a
> slightly different way than
> 


Sorry - could you clarify what you mean by that?

Just checking if we are doing everything correctly.

I didn't understand that there is a connection between the TF-A MMU 
tables for this region and the normal world MMU tables?

For example:

TF-A may map physical address range: 0x0 -> 0x400_000 as 'normal' memory 
for various purposes.

Linux SCMI driver could map physical address range, eg: 0x300_000 -> 
0x301_000 as IO memory for mailbox purpose only.

Is there any issue here?

Regards,

Paul