> On 9 Mar 2025, at 3:26 PM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > 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. I was asking that should I introduce a completely new bus instead of pci and probably reverse engineer the original macOS driver to see what exactly is going on there? I might not have been clear, but I'm not the author of this patch.
