On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:30:27PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Ian Campbell <ijc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 09:28 +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > >> An Independent binary of a secured firmware makes more sense here. > >> Also, if secured firmware is an independent binary then it need not be > >> open source. > > > > In which case it should/can not have anything to do with u-boot nor > > reuse any GPL'd u-boot code. The platform should supply the PSCI service > > itself if you want to do this. > > > > I for one don't see this as an advantage. > > Further, independent secure firmware can be also used by UEFI or other > bootloaders. > > For now we just need secure firmware loading service from u-boot, which > is what this patchset does. > As I see it this patchset seeks to provide (and does a good job of it) you with PSCI services on platforms where you don't already have this, so you avoid having to implement yet another platform-specific SMP boot-up sequence in the kernel. This is not about providing any generic support for secure firmware. Ideally, the platform would just ship with PSCI support and boot U-Boot in Hyp mode and everyone would be happy - whichever way vendors wish to do that is a completely different discussion than this patch set. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
