From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACF7EC98307 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:58:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Cc:List-Subscribe: List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To :Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=XPbwVw8AvPrMTUbDpUqknizZ4TkUS7ak1cVmIlROZSU=; b=GDvpgFPjNF2+cNdcLL5y1nLeb0 zAt+53To4Jtz3/LkX61KN77/wDxG0rE7nFax1WNMMWbGuVr3I+BO6fWdgdLiCmqCYvHeBcm2HAVQ/ bzECvx1bhdZZ9o1Ru3UJTsgrL0XkvcYzoeT45dQ+WkHEPkE+05ZFOzppPXYLIcYnOMV9WLqNzIcx+ t75QA9xxdIIGKgh+rvk1cKiGF6vDb0aN46IhcrkpMHe2dFY8yCbmqVos94CoyX2jx9ikBP/oodlqQ 7g6b6O0ng8bo+2ogNNriRjmtizNUxwYBxzIE+Pbg9ad9jE0lbgkUA0xomjDa9jdWWjP96VqkpcCMO y+3IPyDg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1x9Lce-00000008A9B-1x6t; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:58:48 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1x9Lcd-00000008A91-18gs for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:58:47 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50B54131C; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:58:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D29A91F000FF; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:58:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790164726; bh=XPbwVw8AvPrMTUbDpUqknizZ4TkUS7ak1cVmIlROZSU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=J1V/kd7ZmWBsLX+HguWLeI0boJ+DPXn0S7zM3k8CbyLNfRWmgP8BvhhMdH41+WOE+ /p1bk1Afzo6V/gpThb3oHZ8NfGNxO/XFblCIz35VyUgQlCoSKPKl9n11stlO0jJw0W 83N3/dMNE/PzVc6guTzeztATChzI4ETsgn27m2rQfCzEiYuzcSLNxlcOzFsbKK6HLE jYYCKWbYanC9EgYDqZmLucIXr5rCQ8I4VcnAWkJ/3+gnueE63zR49JDEzsTR3EaA2Q xymQIk/py5T8SQ7ewzX0Pc+3f3WnRnIcBvV/tvBoi05cZiZbwCepUGHnlVmMh46zAK 4s+FzuoHfUxTQ== Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 12:58:41 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Andre Przywara Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] firmware: smccc: Add support for Live Firmware Activation (LFA) Message-ID: <20260923-resilient-speedy-malamute-01c800@sudeepholla> References: <20260918141112.2115555-1-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20260918141112.2115555-3-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20260921-ubiquitous-brawny-hyena-ff6ee9@sudeepholla> <1b87219a-dd52-4270-9127-ec68333ab814@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1b87219a-dd52-4270-9127-ec68333ab814@arm.com> X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Trilok Soni , Salman Nabi , Rob Herring , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Lorenzo Pieralisi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Varun Wadekar , Sudeep Holla , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Conor Dooley , vsethi@nvidia.com, Nirmoy Das , Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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