Quoting eberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2019-11-15 17:19:13) > On 2019-11-15 15:27, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > ... to here I don't understand why any of it needs to change. It looks > > like a bunch of churn and it conflates qcom SCM calls with SMCCC which > > is not desirable. Those two concepts are different. > > I can see the confusion. The goal with this patch is to make it more > clear which > macros and structures are for SCM interface from those which deal with > the > implementation of how an SCM call is implemented with the smc > instruction. It's > not presently clear that struct qcom_scm_response (for instance) is only > relevant in the context of legacy convention. > > I choose the name "legacy" since only older firmwares use it and having > "scm_buffer_get_command_buffer" seems even more confusing to me! "SMCCC" > was > chosen for lack of a better name. > > Additionally, the concern with having qcom_scm_ prefix on these > functions > (especially legacy_get_*_buffer()) is you get long function names which > didn't > seem desirable. If the long names are preferable, I can update series > with the > longer form of the names. > This is the hardest problem in computer science. Figuring out a name. ;-) Maybe call it scm_buffer_*? Because it _is_ scm communication with shared buffers? The newer calling convention passes arguments in registers, but the original calling convention passed a buffer around from non-secure to secure world and then back again and had a embryonic register based calling convention. That buffer passing still sort of happens with the new style but it isn't done unless the register count is larger than 5 or so and the return buffer isn't unbounded in size like it was done. It also sort of follows the ARM SMC Calling Convection spec now.
