Hi Sudeep, On 02. 10. 20 12:58, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> Hi Sudeep, >> >> On 01. 10. 20 17:35, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > [...] > >>> >>> What are the other uses of this KEEMBAY_SIP_* ? >>> For now I tend to move this to the driver making use of it using >>> arm_smccc_1_1_invoke directly if possible. I don't see the need for this >>> to be separate driver. But do let us know the features implemented in the >>> firmware. If it is not v1.1+, reasons for not upgrading as you need v1.1 >>> for some CPU errata implementation. >> >> This driver has been created based on my request to move it out the mmc >> driver. It looks quite hacky to have arm_smccc_res and call >> arm_smccc_smc() also with some IDs where it is visible that the part of >> ID is just based on any spec. > > OK, driver is fine but no dt-bindings as it is discoverable. It can > also be just a wrapper library instead as it needs no explicit > initialisation like drivers to setup. I am fine with it. Do we have any example which we can point him to? > >> Also in v1 he is just calling SMC. But maybe there is going a need to >> call HVC instead which is something what device driver shouldn't decide >> that's why IMHO doing step via firmware driver is much better approach. > > Agreed and one must use arm_smccc_get_conduit or something similar. No > additional bindings for each and ever platform and driver that uses SMCCC > please. > >> Of course if there is a better/cleaner way how this should be done I am >> happy to get more information about it. >> > > Let me know what you think about my thoughts stated above. I am fine with it. The key point is to have these sort it out because I see that a lot of drivers just simply call that SMCs from drivers which is IMHO wrong. BTW: I see you have added soc id reading which you are saying is the part of smcc v1.2 but I can't see any implementation in TF-A. Is this spec publicly available? Thanks, Michal
