On 7/28/22 13:21, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:05:15PM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
On 7/28/22 10:23, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
Worst case I am fine with that as this needs to be one of and future
platforms must get their act right in designing their f/w interface.
Again, I fully agree with you that this situation shouldn't exist. But
reality is sadly different.
As I mentioned I don't have final authority to say yes or no to DT bindings.
I have expressed my opinion and I thing allowing this to be generic via DT
bindings gives no incentive to get the firmware story right. Hence I am happy
to see this as one-off driver change and then we more changes are added to
the driver or similar drivers get added in the future, we have a change to
demand what action has been taken to fix the firmware story.
Just adding DT support(which I disagree) will make future platform to just
use it and not get improvements in areas of discovery or query from the
firmware.
Okay, that is a good point. Although it's probably debatable how much
control we have over what goes on with WoA devices.
Would something like this work for you: Add a compatible for the TrEE
interface (e.g. qcom,sc8180x-tee) but not for the specific apps running
in that and then instantiate the app-specific sub-devices from that. We
would still have to hard-code app-names in the driver (i.e. shift the
problem from DT to driver and potentially create soc-specific lists),
but they're no longer in DT (again, I'm not a particular fan of this but
I could live with that, if needed).
We can then look for a solution for apps that need to be manually loaded
or vendor/device specific apps once those becomes an issue.
Regards,
Max
