On 11/17/2013 08:59 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 17 November 2013 08:49, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The ARM tree includes a firmware_ops interface that is designed to >> implement support for simple, TrustZone-based firmwares but could >> also cover other use-cases. It has been suggested that this >> interface might be useful to other architectures (e.g. arm64) and >> that it should be moved out of arch/arm. > > NAK. I'm for code sharing with arm via common locations but this API > goes against the ARMv8 firmware standardisation efforts like PSCI, > encouraging each platform to define there own non-standard interface. Surely PSCI is *an* implementation of firmware_ops? Couldn't firmware_ops be relevant to non-ARM architectures too? If so, that would support my previous point; we're presumably not requiring non-ARM architectures to implement PSCI? On a practical note, unless ARM mandates by ARM architecture licensing condition that mechanisms other than PSCI are not allowed, then they're going to exist even if the upstream Linux community doesn't like it. History has certainly shown that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |