[PATCH 2/9] mailbox: arm_mhu: add driver for ARM MHU controller

On 25 November 2014 at 23:31, Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] wrote:

On 25/11/14 16:51, Jassi Brar wrote:

quoted

On 25 November 2014 at 20:07, Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 20/11/14 12:34, Vincent Yang wrote:

quoted

Add driver for the ARM Message-Handling-Unit (MHU).

Signed-off-by: Andy Green <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Vincent Yang <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Nuriya <redacted>
---
   .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt        |  33 ++++
   drivers/mailbox/Kconfig                            |   7 +
   drivers/mailbox/Makefile                           |   2 +
   drivers/mailbox/arm_mhu.c                          | 196
+++++++++++++++++++++
   4 files changed, 238 insertions(+)
   create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt
   create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm_mhu.c

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b1b9888

--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+ARM MHU Mailbox Driver
+======================
+
+The ARM's Message-Handling-Unit (MHU) is a mailbox controller that has
+3 independent channels/links to communicate with remote processor(s).

I had reviewed this before and I see not all the comments are addressed.
I had mentioned that you can't add support to _SECURE_ channel in Linux
as you need to assume Linux runs in non-secure privilege(and I gather
that's the case even on this platform from other email in the thread)

Please revisit the old thread. After some discussion you had
graciously allowed me to keep the secure channel ;)
[
... Even though I don't like you have secure channel access in Linux, you
have valid reasons. In case you decide to support it ....
]

Agreed but based on the other email in the same thread it looks like you
want to run the same kernel both in secure and no-secure mode on this
platform, in which case you _have_to_assume_ it's *non-secure only* always
unless you come up with some DT magic.

Yes, the S vs NS mode should ideally be defined in DT. The kernel
image should remain the same.

quoted

  It seems you still don't get my point that the driver should manage
all channels - S & NS. If Linux is running in NS mode on a platform,
the DT will specify only some NS channel to be used. The controller
driver shouldn't be crippled just because you think Linux will never
be run in Secure mode.

Ok how do you handle that, I don't see that in the DT binding. As it
stands, you can unconditionally try to access the secure channel and
cause aborts if the platform is running in non-secure mode.

No. Please look at the dtsi again ....

        mhu: mailbox at 2b1f0000 {
                #mbox-cells = <1>;
                compatible = "arm,mbox-mhu";
                reg = <0 0x2b1f0000 0x1000>;
                interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP Non-Sec */
                             <0 35 4>, /* HP Non-Sec */
                             <0 37 4>; /* Secure */
        };

        mhu_client: scb at 2e000000 {
                compatible = "fujitsu,mb86s70-scb-1.0";
                reg = <0 0x2e000000 0x4000>; /* SHM for IPC */
                mboxes = <&mhu 1>;
        };

See the DT for mbox client specifies that it uses channel-1 which is
High-Priority_Non-Secure channel.

-jassi