From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
"linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:03:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <528A4869.2020701@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com>
On 11/18/2013 04:58 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
...
> Of course, trusted foundations interface could be plugged into cpu_ops
> on arm64 but I will NAK it on the grounds of not using the PSCI API, nor
> the SMC calling convention (and it's easy to fix when porting to ARMv8).
> If a supported standard API is used, then there is no need for
> additional code in the kernel.
What happens when someone takes an existing working secure-mode SW stack
and simply re-uses it on some new ARMv8 SoC. Are you going to force
people working on upstream to re-write the secure mode firmware in
shipped hardware before allowing upstream kernel support?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:03:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <528A4869.2020701@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com>
On 11/18/2013 04:58 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
...
> Of course, trusted foundations interface could be plugged into cpu_ops
> on arm64 but I will NAK it on the grounds of not using the PSCI API, nor
> the SMC calling convention (and it's easy to fix when porting to ARMv8).
> If a supported standard API is used, then there is no need for
> additional code in the kernel.
What happens when someone takes an existing working secure-mode SW stack
and simply re-uses it on some new ARMv8 SoC. Are you going to force
people working on upstream to re-write the secure mode firmware in
shipped hardware before allowing upstream kernel support?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-18 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-17 8:49 [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware Alexandre Courbot
2013-11-17 8:49 ` Alexandre Courbot
2013-11-17 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-17 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 3:05 ` Alex Courbot
2013-11-18 3:05 ` Alex Courbot
2013-11-18 11:58 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 11:58 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 11:58 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 17:03 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2013-11-18 17:03 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-18 17:10 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-11-18 17:10 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-11-18 17:18 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-18 17:18 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-18 17:30 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 17:30 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 17:52 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-18 17:52 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-19 11:38 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 11:38 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 11:38 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 19:04 ` Christopher Covington
2013-11-18 19:04 ` Christopher Covington
2013-11-19 11:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 11:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 11:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 2:46 ` Alex Courbot
2013-11-19 2:46 ` Alex Courbot
2013-11-19 12:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 12:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 12:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 14:29 ` Alexandre Courbot
2013-11-19 14:29 ` Alexandre Courbot
2013-11-19 15:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 15:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 15:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-19 15:17 ` Alexandre Courbot
2013-11-19 15:17 ` Alexandre Courbot
2013-11-18 17:00 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-18 17:00 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-18 17:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 17:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-11-18 17:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-11-18 17:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=528A4869.2020701@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
--cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=kyungmin.park@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=swarren@nvidia.com \
--cc=t.figa@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.