Re: [PATCH V8 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
Hi Peng,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[cannot apply to v5.3 next-20190920]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Peng-Fan/mailbox-arm-introduce-smc-triggered-mailbox/20190924-091652
config: sh-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.4.0
reproduce:
wget
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O
~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
GCC_VERSION=7.4.0 make.cross ARCH=sh
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from :0:0:
>> include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h:17:3: error: unknown type name 'u32'
u32 args_smccc32[6];
^~~
>> include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h:18:3: error: unknown type name 'u64'
u64 args_smccc64[6];
^~~
vim +/u32 +17 include/linux/mailbox/arm-smccc-mbox.h
5
6 /**
7 * struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd - ARM SMCCC message structure
8 * @function_id:function id passed from client, If mbox
9 * DT has arm,func-id property, the driver will use
10 * that one.
11 * @args_smccc32/64:actual usage of registers is up to the protocol
12 * (within the SMCCC limits)
13 */
14 struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd {
15 unsigned int function_id;
16 union {
> 17 u32 args_smccc32[6];
> 18 u64 args_smccc64[6];
19 };
20 };
21
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructureOpen Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
.config.gz
Description: application/gzip
RE: [PATCH V8 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
Hi Florian > Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox > > Hi Peng, > > On 9/23/2019 6:14 PM, Peng Fan wrote: > > From: Peng Fan > > > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted > > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox > > receiver is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data > > when it returns execution to the non-secure world again. > > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented. > > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs > > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which > > such a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP > > interface. > > > > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore > > .kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F812999%2Fdata=02%7C01%7 > Cpeng.fa > > > n%40nxp.com%7C296c7cd2225e4ca32bb808d74099afb2%7C686ea1d3bc2b4 > c6fa92cd > > > 99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637048901144091126sdata=JDo%2Be7Tt > hoi4jve0O > > S8qe3%2Fpji4g8CgRxL7ntCQx3Fg%3Dreserved=0 > > > > Cc: Andre Przywara > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan > > --- > > [snip] > > > +typedef unsigned long (smc_mbox_fn)(unsigned int, unsigned long, > > + unsigned long, unsigned long, > > + unsigned long, unsigned long, > > + unsigned long); > > +static smc_mbox_fn *invoke_smc_mbox_fn; > > Sorry for spotting this so late, the only thing that concerns me here with > this > singleton is if we happen to have both an arm,smc-mbox and arm,hvc-mbox > configured in the system, this would not work. Yes. Thanks for spotting this. I do not believe this could be a > functional use case, but we should probably guard against that or better yet, > move that into the arm_smc_chan_data private structure? Agree. Will Fix in v9. Thanks, Peng. > -- > Florian
Re: [PATCH V8 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
Hi Peng, On 9/23/2019 6:14 PM, Peng Fan wrote: > From: Peng Fan > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data > via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver > is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it > returns execution to the non-secure world again. > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented. > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs > which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such > a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP > interface. > > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/812999/ > > Cc: Andre Przywara > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan > --- [snip] > +typedef unsigned long (smc_mbox_fn)(unsigned int, unsigned long, > + unsigned long, unsigned long, > + unsigned long, unsigned long, > + unsigned long); > +static smc_mbox_fn *invoke_smc_mbox_fn; Sorry for spotting this so late, the only thing that concerns me here with this singleton is if we happen to have both an arm,smc-mbox and arm,hvc-mbox configured in the system, this would not work. I do not believe this could be a functional use case, but we should probably guard against that or better yet, move that into the arm_smc_chan_data private structure? -- Florian
