Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw binding doc

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 07:06:30AM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:00 PM
> > To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley
> > <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sascha Hauer
> > <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Pengutronix Kernel Team
> > <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>; Rob
> > Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw
> > binding doc

For the third time, please fix your mail client so it stops inserting
this garbage.

> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 11:02:21AM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:38 PM
> > > > To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley
> > > > <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sascha
> > Hauer
> > > > <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Pengutronix Kernel Team
> > > > <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>; Rob
> > > > Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add
> > > > imx-se-fw binding doc
> > 
> > Please fix this ^
> > 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 09:28:31AM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Rob Herring
> > > > > > <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > > > > Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Guo
> > > > > > <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sascha
> > > > Hauer
> > > > > > <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Pengutronix Kernel Team
> > > > > > <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>; Rob
> > > > > > Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > > > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > > imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add
> > > > > > imx-se-fw binding doc
> > > >
> > > > Please fix this ^
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:21:37AM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > > In case of imx8ulp, there is a single node.
> > > Having a same node name for both parent and child, is bit strange.
> > > firmware {
> > > 	firmware {
> > > 	};
> > > };
> > >
> > > Request you to allow to re-evaluate this point.
> > 
> > I dunno, it's all firmware so I don't really get why it is so strange!
> > Can you remind me again why it is inside a parent node to begin with?
> 
> Three type of security firmware(s): HSM, V2X-SHE, V2X-HSM, are running at the cores dedicated to the each different secure-enclave hardware IP(s).
> Each firmware receives the message to act and response back with the completed act.
> This message exchanges happens through the Message-Unit hardware interface. 
> There could be multiple MU for multiple security firmware, that would be used for respective message exchanges.
> 
> This node defines the details of each such MU interface.
> 
> Reason to put under firmware:
> 	Since this node specifies interface details between kernel and firmware, it was put under parent "firmware {".
> 	I am not sure if this reason is correct enough to begin with.
> 
> Thanks for allowing to revisit.
> 
> I will make the change to whatever you finalize now. Thanks.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand why you have the parent node. It
seems pointless to me, and this new node could be added at the top
level.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature