Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:28:38 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: arm,mhu: Make secure interrupt
 optional
Message-ID: <20220801102838.u3hcziiwts7bpxt2@bogus>
References: <20220728190810.1290857-1-robh@kernel.org>
 <CABb+yY2jV7c8oX7=F=nocfvGrOMHJAYov7zS2nT0=qFoNyoxJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABb+yY0JzztBB+giBu+RCt-dzgwYWF32sCR3WKKP9U5K9UvhxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220729111051.5me4vklrzskvsj4w@bogus>
 <CAL_JsqLwk+=CeDWqXzhrVESzhJnNjOjyR-TtisKGgjMUi7TivQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLwk+=CeDWqXzhrVESzhJnNjOjyR-TtisKGgjMUi7TivQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 05:17:26PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 5:10 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:

[...]

> >
> > No this doesn't work IMO. Yes standalone everything looks fine, but you can
> > insert a module requesting this channel and bring down the system. So I am
> > not for this change.
>
> Not having the interrupt listed in DT doesn't prevent that. Is this
> security by obscurity?
>

I agree, as I mentioned in the other thread, if we had a way to mark that
channel as used elsewhere or disabled or unavailable, it would have been
great.

> I don't really care which way this is fixed though.

Understood.

> I just want the warning gone. We've all got better things to worry about.

Agreed.

> The DT not having the interrupt has been that way for years (presumably)
> and the kernel never needs the interrupt, so the schema should reflect
> reality.

I prefer this approach.

> On the flip side, considering it *can* be present already, there's not
> really much argument for not having it.
>

Can't disagree/argue that ????.

--
Regards,
Sudeep