Hi Nicolas, On 04/02/2025 18:12, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > Hi Florent, > > Le lundi 03 février 2025 à 13:36 +0000, Florent Tomasin a écrit : >> >> On 30/01/2025 13:28, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 01:08:57PM +0000, Florent Tomasin wrote: >>>> Introduce a CMA Heap dt-binding allowing custom >>>> CMA heap registrations. >>>> >>>> * Note to the reviewers: >>>> The patch was used for the development of the protected mode > > Just to avoid divergence in nomenclature, and because this is not a new subject, > perhaps you should also adhere to the name "restricted". Both Linaro and > Mediatek have moved from "secure" to that name in their proposal. As you are the > third proposing this (at least for the proposal that are CCed on linux-media), I > would have expected in your cover letter a summary of how the other requirement > have been blended in your proposal. Just to be sure I undertand your suggestion correctly, are you proposing to use "restricted mode" instead of "protected mode"? In the case of Panthor CSF driver, the term: "protected mode" refers to a Mali CSF GPU HW concept: - https://developer.arm.com/documentation/100964/1127/Fast-Models-components/Media-components/Mali-G71 If preferred and to avoid confusion, I can remove the reference to "protected mode" and "Panthor CSF driver" from the commit message to focus only on the CMA heap changes, which are more generic and can apply to any type of CMA memory. Note that the CMA patches were initially shared to help reproduce my environment of development, I can isolate them in a separate patch series and include a reference or "base-commit:" tag to it in the Panthor protected mode RFC, to help progress this review in another thread. It will avoid overlapping these two topics: - Multiple standalone CMA heaps support - Panthor protected mode handling Regards, Florent
