From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDB24F3931; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790164731; cv=none; b=UVXIVu/PVvwHejLd6PXI6Mj3UMOp4ICybAStu85CWXXqD5A38oOkWljlHLRzksB4HGw0/wckQTUypxYaAU2t/RPtZAHAroHhPylhpzpGdqURJFHE/API3d0drpX8lfLR2rIDpzBTOf0RSOY+N7W/sw/OVesmyYQG5HhGealoX/8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790164731; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mpSCfBw2MyUXF4x4y6PrLZs/lCKK4Z/hnDGYQZ2I+s8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Pe9Nv8WC2vgidgyW4GPTyA3C9Kvf3/6SfDo5p22+/j9LKcHDbPv1Lz5szjgk4tyS8Z5QFTXYxitgt7mFvH7jqFFKhNo0cNA6ErCRs6+Um5Fa5ho/wYhV4jSP4Wugu2AtFVpkE2/5D9AACE10uwTuxl/08ylYWaHvj2s69FugjDg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=J1V/kd7Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="J1V/kd7Z" 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 Cc: Mark Rutland , Sudeep Holla , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Salman Nabi , Vedashree Vidwans , Trilok Soni , Nirmoy Das , vsethi@nvidia.com, Varun Wadekar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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