On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:00:32PM +0000, Stephen Warren wrote: > 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? There are similarities but you don't ask other architectures to implement an l2x0_init function. If we find other things we want to describe in here, does this structure become a pool of function pointers to be shared by other architectures? What's the common functionality that you want to place in this structure? > If so, that would support my previous point; we're presumably not > requiring non-ARM architectures to implement PSCI? So you think non-ARM architectures could make use of the firmware_ops? > 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. I'm pretty sure they will exist, as there is tons of kernel code in production devices that never reach mainline. And I already stated a few times, this interface can be extended, I just don't want one per SoC just because some vendors want to use different SMC numbers. -- Catalin -- 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
 |