[PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add compatibility checks for shmem node

[Florian Fainelli]

On 6/3/21 10:18 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 6/2/21 12:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote:
>>>>> Hello Sudeep,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 00:51, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The shared memory node used for communication between the firmware and
>>>>>> the OS should be compatible with "arm,scmi-shmem". Add the check for the
>>>>>> same while parsing the node before fetching the memory regions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi at arm.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere at linaro.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c | 3 +++
>>>>>>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c     | 3 +++
>>>>>>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c
>>>>>> index 4626404be541..e3dcb58314ae 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/mailbox.c
>>>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int mailbox_chan_setup(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev,
>>>>>>                 return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         shmem = of_parse_phandle(cdev->of_node, "shmem", idx);
>>>>>> +       if (!of_device_is_compatible(shmem, "arm,scmi-shmem"))
>>>>>> +               return -ENXIO;
>>>>>
>>>>> Before this change, one could use another type of memory node, like "mmio-sram".
>>>>> Is there a strong reason to enforce use of "arm,scmi-shmem" nodes?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is for the entire SRAM which still holds and generic on-chip SRAM
>>>> driver will take care of that, this is only for the subsections that is
>>>> reserved for the scp shmem. The binding has been always there, just the
>>>> missing check. When I move to yaml, I realised that and hence the
>>>> addition of check.
>>>
>>> Ok, I understand. True the binding was there but only in the DTS
>>> examples snipped.
>>> This constraint on the compatible property of the shmem node should be
>>> clearly stated in the yaml I think.
>>>
>>
>> Was this missing in your DTS files ? Just curious.
>>
> 
> FWIW, our legacy DTs would have the following:
> 
> 	reserved-memory {
>                 /* This is a placeholder */
>                 NWMBOX: NWMBOX {
>                 };
>         };
> 
>        brcm_scmi: brcm_scmi at 0 {
>                 compatible = "arm,scmi-smc", "arm,scmi";
>                 mboxes = <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 0>, <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 1>;
>                 mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>                 shmem = <&NWMBOX>;
>                 status = "disabled";
> 
> so while we have since switched to the SMC transport, the shared memory
> still does not have an "arm,scmi-shmem" compatible string, and this is a
> relatively new thing, so I am not sure we can enforce that just yet?

Sorry, I incorrectly browsed the binding history, this is not a new
requirement,  will make sure we fix it at our end, too.
-- 
Florian