Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] firmware: qcom: scm: add modparam to control QSEECOM enablement

[Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 02:08:23PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:11:20PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 01:53:25AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > In preparation to enabling QSEECOM for the platforms rather than
> > > individual machines provide a mechanism for the user to override default
> > > selection. Allow users to use qcom_scm.qseecom modparam.
> > > 
> > > Setting it to 'force' will enable QSEECOM even if it disabled or not
> > > handled by the allowlist.
> > > 
> > > Setting it to 'off' will forcibly disable the QSEECOM interface,
> > > allowing incompatible machines to function.
> > > 
> > > Setting it to 'roefivars' will enable the QSEECOM interface, making UEFI
> > > variables read-only.
> > > 
> > > All other values mean 'auto', trusting the allowlist in the module.
> > 
> > I don't see the need for this. The kernel should just provide sensible
> > defaults.
> 
> It does provide _defaults_. However with the next commit we mass-enable
> QSEECOM for SoC families, which includes untested WoA devices. If the
> user observes a misbehaviour of the UEFI vars or any other
> QSEECOM-related driver on those platforms, it is much easier to let
> users test and workaround UEFI misbehaviour.

You basically know by now which machines supports qseecom and which do
not, right (e.g. UFS storage means non-persistent EFI vars)?

And it's a pretty bad user experience to have people trying to write
efivariables when setting up a machine and then spend hours trying to
debug why they don't persist after a reboot.

I don't think that's fair to users.

Let whoever brings up a new machine figure this out. It's just one
entry, no scaling issues, and we get accurate information (unless
Qualcomm, who sits on the documentation, is willing to provide it
upfront).

Johan