From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:03:37 -0700 Message-ID: <528A4869.2020701@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1384678169-28228-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <52898417.80601@nvidia.com> <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:44295 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751571Ab3KRRDl (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:03:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas , Alex Courbot Cc: Alexandre Courbot , Kukjin Kim , Stephen Warren , Tomasz Figa , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kyungmin Park , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , Olof Johansson , Russell King , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 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? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:03:37 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware In-Reply-To: <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com> References: <1384678169-28228-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <52898417.80601@nvidia.com> <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com> Message-ID: <528A4869.2020701@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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?