On Tue, 2024-05-28 at 15:59 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 02:38:46PM +0000, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) wrote: > > Hi Conor, > > > > On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 18:36 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 10:44:37PM +0800, Jason-JH.Lin wrote: > > > > 1. Add mboxes property to define a GCE loopping thread as a > > > > secure > > > > IRQ > > > > handler. > > > > The CMDQ secure driver requests a mbox channel and sends a > > > > looping > > > > command to the GCE thread. The looping command will wait for a > > > > secure > > > > packet done event signal from secure world and then jump back > > > > to > > > > the > > > > first instuction. Each time it waits for an event, it notifies > > > > the > > > > CMDQ driver to perform the same action as the IRQ handler. > > > > > > > > 2. Add gce-events property from gce-props.yaml to define a > > > > secure packet done signal in secure world. > > > > There are 1024 events IDs for GCE to use to execute > > > > instructions in > > > > the specific event happened. These events could be signaled by > > > > HW > > > > or SW > > > > and their value would be different in different SoC because of > > > > HW > > > > event > > > > IDs distribution range from 0 to 1023. > > > > If we set a static event ID: 855 for mt8188, it might be > > > > conflict > > > > the > > > > event ID original set in mt8195. > > > > > > Two different SoCs, two different compatibles, no problem. > > > I'm almost certain you previously told me that the firmware > > > changing > > > could result in a different event ID, but I see no mention of > > > that > > > here. > > > > Yes, it could be, but we don't use it that way. > > > > > The commit messages makes it seem like this can be determined by > > > the > > > compatible, so either give me a commit message that explains why > > > the > > > compatible is not sufficient or drop the patch. > > > > > > > Yes, this can be determined by compatible in CMDQ mailbox driver, > > so I think it's possible to put this in the CMDQ mailbox driver > > data > > and configure by different SoC. > > > > The problem is these events are defined in include/dt- > > bindings/mailbox/mediatek,mt8188-gce.h and include/dt- > > bindings/gce/mt8195-gce.h. > > I can only use them in their mt8188.dts or mt8195.dts. > > > > If I want to use the same event define in 2 different headers in > > the > > same CMDQ mailbox driver, I think I just can parse their dts to get > > the > > corresponding one. > > Do you know how to generally deal with this problem? > > Or I can just use the number of event ID in driver data without the > > event define in dt-bindings header. > > I don't think I really understand the problem. You get the > channelid/event data from the match data, right? Is the problem that > both files define the same "word" to mean different numbers? Yes, I mean the same "event define" with different event ID numbers in different SoC headers. > In that > case, just define the numbers locally in the driver, you don't need > to > include a binding header when there's no data sharing between dts and > kernel. OK, I'll do that and drop this patch. Thanks~ Regards, Jason-JH.Lin
