Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Trilok Soni <trilokkumar.soni@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Salman Nabi <salman.nabi@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Varun Wadekar <vwadekar@nvidia.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	vsethi@nvidia.com, Nirmoy Das <nirmoyd@nvidia.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] firmware: smccc: Add support for Live Firmware Activation (LFA)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 12:58:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260923-resilient-speedy-malamute-01c800@sudeepholla> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1b87219a-dd52-4270-9127-ec68333ab814@arm.com>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 01:46:56PM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On 9/21/26 17:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > 
> > DEN0147, Section 2.1.2, says that the caller must determine that
> > the SMCCC version is at least 1.2 before calling LFA_VERSION.  The generic
> > SMCCC probing path only checks that a conduit exists before invoking this
> > function ID. That could break our SMCCC bus logic. Assuming the firmware
> > can cope up, it is always good to check the SMCCC version >=v1.2 in the
> > probe which is not done currently.
> 
> So as said above, I am checking this in lfa_smccc_probe() now. If I get you
> right, then that's the right place to do? Or are you suggesting we should
> move that check into the SMCCC bus code? I think the version call is
> compliant with the SMCCC v1.0 calling convention, so should be safe to call
> in any case?
> 

I hope so. I was just thinking out loud here. My earlier comment to check
for SMCCC v1.2 before using LFA_VERSION conflicts with what SMCCC logic
as is. But yes it should be compliant, I was just thinking how one statement
from the spec I used to request you to add a check in probe conflict here.

Worst case we can add version based addition in that SMCCC device addition
if required in the future, shouldn't be a big deal.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep


  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-23 11:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-18 14:11 [PATCH v4 0/8] Arm Live Firmware Activation (LFA) support Andre Przywara
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] dt-bindings: arm: Add Live Firmware Activation Andre Przywara
2026-09-21 15:10   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-09-21 15:41     ` Andre Przywara
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] firmware: smccc: Add support for Live Firmware Activation (LFA) Andre Przywara
2026-09-18 15:24   ` Mark Rutland
2026-09-21 15:25     ` Andre Przywara
2026-09-21 15:32   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-09-23 11:46     ` Andre Przywara
2026-09-23 11:58       ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] firmware: smccc: lfa: Add timeout and trigger watchdog Andre Przywara
2026-09-21 15:36   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-10-02 13:57     ` Andre Przywara
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] firmware: smccc: lfa: Register ACPI notification Andre Przywara
2026-09-21 16:04   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-10-02 13:37     ` Andre Przywara
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] firmware: smccc: lfa: Add auto_activate sysfs file Andre Przywara
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] firmware: smccc: lfa: Register DT interrupt Andre Przywara
2026-09-21 16:09   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 7/8] firmware: smccc: lfa: introduce SMC access lock Andre Przywara
2026-09-18 14:11 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] firmware: smccc: lfa: add sysfs ABI documentation Andre Przywara
2026-09-21 16:19   ` Sudeep Holla

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=20260923-resilient-speedy-malamute-01c800@sudeepholla \
    --to=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
    --cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
    --cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=nirmoyd@nvidia.com \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=salman.nabi@arm.com \
    --cc=trilokkumar.soni@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=vsethi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=vwadekar@nvidia.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox