> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:sudeep.ho...@arm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:16 AM
> To: Jolly Shah <jol...@xilinx.com>
> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com>; gre...@linuxfoundation.org;
> m...@codeblueprint.co.uk; hkallwe...@gmail.com; michal.si...@xilinx.com;
> robh...@kernel.org; mark.rutl...@arm.com; ard.biesheu...@linaro.org;
> mi...@kernel.org; keesc...@chromium.org; dmitry.torok...@gmail.com;
> Rajan Vaja <raj...@xilinx.com>; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; devicet...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add bindings for ZynqMP
> On 12/03/18 23:07, Jolly Shah wrote:
> > Hi Sudeep,
> >>>> Do you foresee using SMC/HVC for this firmware even on future
> >>>> If not, I suggest to keep the protocol part separate from the transport
> >>>> i.e.
> >>>> smc/hvc via ATF. It could be replaced with mailbox or some h/w
> >>>> mechanism in future ?
> >>> We have PSCI and EEMI interfaces exposed to linux from ATF. PSCI is
> >>> an EEMI client. We do not have current plans to switch to mailbox as
> >>> it will require 2 communication channels to PMU as PSCI is through ATF.
> >> OK, but I just saw some bindings that has mailbox interface, honestly
> >> it's getting too confusing with multiple series on the same thing
> >> floating and hence I requested to put it together as one series.
> > Mailbox binding is used for power management driver. Mailbox is only
> > used for PMU->APU communication. APU->PMU communication is always
> > through EEMI firmware interface which is using SMC/HVC.
> Ah OK, is it because there's no non-secure mailbox or to avoid races, all non-
> secure EEMI is channeled through SMC ?
1> Avoid multiple EEMI communication channels as PSCI is through ATF.
2> We have some secure operations handled in ATF because of memory constraints