On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 09:52:43AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: > > > > 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? I'm sorry, I can not parse this.
