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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDAAC432C0 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 21:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83722222D3 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 21:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="BaCMkMwB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727714AbfKSVrL (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:47:11 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f67.google.com ([209.85.216.67]:39522 "EHLO mail-pj1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727674AbfKSVrK (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:47:10 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f67.google.com with SMTP id t103so3201208pjb.6 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:47:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :references:subject:from:cc:to:user-agent:date; bh=z0/O1Vpuw+xwM/4jaTJh2/ARW1/nXxwQlkmSxUL0re0=; b=BaCMkMwBvnUDcFn2Afgbc832ylHb3Li4n3kiBHbNDNumcoZCz28vAMJbW9E0ee0vie gSUwrOjPqwiC8bWK7cnfgMYXiHMRHknJYIUvuXa/h5fR2taBOM0UNkJ9m2/t/mqot34I rvM8AecLG/bdb1/PuULA0s5swchRu1MwkrVhk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references:subject:from:cc:to :user-agent:date; bh=z0/O1Vpuw+xwM/4jaTJh2/ARW1/nXxwQlkmSxUL0re0=; b=HVYJDvwfEAz56al5QJLD80JMLy2MN81GOr0xxYe4RWg/7ltzKSgpTPYE6MoRZZdAVJ HJM6cMmLLvCKMYmfiMvpaosKAMx96oau59QzUXvyUwcjQwD+jxwAPQr4z6Aoqeh21G1I 8gP6JTDaiqWNeHCcbd8IWOOgWQgTF0AeC2SEBc/4MUCpD2bQBA4FUCvt0BNu/21iF0aJ Di3VjEe9sEnYykeIQXo0FbiqHRsAWE+rEeuUzDalbC5mMXO9t3ysGYNt/9sJcLPsQzkL 28GZmon1gyQT3Bg9uiNgwTkuThwhTMbiaRfCp7ofsXmwcu1N7EfMAiSLOptaF5hv+1Oq 10pQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUq5JRbDA39cQySF3ZRVrzEf0OSAy5MxNiX7LphDyTBj/w/FPxd Y1qsYPU0u3hW3CrEQdVumbUpOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLEe3KL2Zldw+TrHLk4DNNJbwDIIiCfEsGQS+VUTgBS6MuEFSHCE9qrdN1ThzKlXUAaqFniA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4803:: with SMTP id a3mr9371388pjh.101.1574200029396; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:47:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from chromium.org ([2620:15c:202:1:fa53:7765:582b:82b9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y8sm25901244pfl.8.2019.11.19.13.47.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:47:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5dd462dc.1c69fb81.b84c3.e950@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <4b63daf69f7b49ce8304b5cd85e39b22@codeaurora.org> References: <1573593774-12539-1-git-send-email-eberman@codeaurora.org> <1573593774-12539-2-git-send-email-eberman@codeaurora.org> <5dcf345b.1c69fb81.df1ea.f7f6@mx.google.com> <4b63daf69f7b49ce8304b5cd85e39b22@codeaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/18] firmware: qcom_scm: Rename macros and structures From: Stephen Boyd Cc: agross@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org, tsoni@codeaurora.org, sidgup@codeaurora.org, psodagud@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: eberman@codeaurora.org User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:47:07 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting eberman@codeaurora.org (2019-11-15 17:19:13) > On 2019-11-15 15:27, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > ... to here I don't understand why any of it needs to change. It looks > > like a bunch of churn and it conflates qcom SCM calls with SMCCC which > > is not desirable. Those two concepts are different. >=20 > I can see the confusion. The goal with this patch is to make it more=20 > clear which > macros and structures are for SCM interface from those which deal with=20 > the > implementation of how an SCM call is implemented with the smc=20 > instruction. It's > not presently clear that struct qcom_scm_response (for instance) is only > relevant in the context of legacy convention. >=20 > I choose the name "legacy" since only older firmwares use it and having > "scm_buffer_get_command_buffer" seems even more confusing to me! "SMCCC" = > was > chosen for lack of a better name. >=20 > Additionally, the concern with having qcom_scm_ prefix on these=20 > functions > (especially legacy_get_*_buffer()) is you get long function names which=20 > didn't > seem desirable. If the long names are preferable, I can update series=20 > with the > longer form of the names. >=20 This is the hardest problem in computer science. Figuring out a name. ;-) Maybe call it scm_buffer_*? Because it _is_ scm communication with shared buffers? The newer calling convention passes arguments in registers, but the original calling convention passed a buffer around from non-secure to secure world and then back again and had a embryonic register based calling convention. That buffer passing still sort of happens with the new style but it isn't done unless the register count is larger than 5 or so and the return buffer isn't unbounded in size like it was done. It also sort of follows the ARM SMC Calling Convection spec now.