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 lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (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 E9A66C433F5 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:44:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.270781.465097 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nIrkw-0004jl-1v; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:44:02 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 270781.465097; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:44:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nIrkv-0004je-V0; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:44:01 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 270781; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:44:00 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nIrku-0004jY-Fp for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:44:00 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nIrkt-00040P-AI; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:43:59 +0000 Received: from home.octic.net ([81.187.162.82] helo=[10.0.1.102]) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nIrkt-0004Gn-4n; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:43:59 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=8RDYz19e6hQ6eQ6Xx8thMUZgK+ZufT++G8O6jPEqbnw=; b=SzOAenoeQ0rAwSz9m1v6dwtjfq VUm7mba5jpcx1drAW64qPXAiltmbN15/Msh3zi1hk1XaHkcIMHvNCaUs2qs25XSBr0IngcZyx3dEP 0a4ppC1EQy24X7eNCfyQI+5Hs4dbM66m3SS69XszQy4XV5an/Q9VxRWq1NNlwiH9xahg=; Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:43:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/8] xen/arm: introduce SCMI-SMC mediator driver To: Bertrand Marquis , Oleksii Moisieiev Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Volodymyr Babchuk References: <20220211104403.GA2291814@EPUAKYIW015D> From: Julien Grall In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 11/02/2022 11:18, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > Do you plan to add support for other boards ? > > Did you discuss more in general with the linux kernel guys to see if this > approach was agreed and will be adopted by other manufacturers ? > > All in all I think this is a good idea but I fear that all this will actually only > be used by one board or one manufacturer and other might use a different > strategy, I would like to unrisk this before merging this in Xen. In the past we merged code that would only benefits one vendor (i.e. EEMI). That said, this was a vendor specific protocol. I believe the situation is different here because the spec is meant to be generic. > @julien and Stefano: what is your view here ? I share the same concerns as you. I think we need to make sure all the pieces we rely on (e.g. firmware, DT bindings) have been agreed before we can merge such code in Xen. The first step is to have all the pieces available in public so they can be reviewed and tested together. Oleksii, on a separate e-mail, you said you made change for ATF. How much of those changes was related to support for Xen? If they are some, then I think they should be upstreamed first. Cheers, -- Julien Grall