Re: [PATCH RFC] staging: Add driver to communicate with the T2 Security Chip

[Aditya Garg]

> On 9 Mar 2025, at 3:21 PM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 09:41:29AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> On 9 Mar 2025, at 3:09 PM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 09:28:01AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> On 9 Mar 2025, at 2:46 PM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 09:03:29AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 9 Mar 2025, at 2:24 PM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 08:40:31AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Paul Pawlowski <paul@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This patch adds a driver named apple-bce, to add support for the T2
>>>>>>>> Security Chip found on certain Macs.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The driver has 3 main components:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> BCE (Buffer Copy Engine) - this is what the files in the root directory
>>>>>>>> are for. This estabilishes a basic communication channel with the T2.
>>>>>>>> VHCI and Audio both require this component.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So this is a new "bus" type?  Or a platform resource?  Or something
>>>>>>> else?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's a PCI device
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great, but then is the resources split up into smaller drivers that then
>>>>> bind to it?  How does the other devices talk to this?
>>>> 
>>>> We technically can split up these 3 into separate drivers and put then into their own trees.
>>> 
>>> That's fine, but you say that the bce code is used by the other drivers,
>>> right?  So there is some sort of "tie" between these, and that needs to
>>> be properly conveyed in the device tree in sysfs as that will be
>>> required for proper resource management.
>> 
>> Yes there needs to be a tie, basically first establish a communication with the t2 using bce and then the other 2 come into the picture. I did get a basic idea from what the maintainers want, and this will be some work to do. Thanks for your inputs!
> 
> If there is "communication" then that's a bus in the driver model
> scheme, so just use that, right?

So basically RE the whole driver to see what exactly should be use?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h