Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application client

From: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application client
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 12:25:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fe2b820b-9f3b-814b-4792-e6685b13ede6@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <95cbcda8-d1bc-376c-b338-92d1b923f04a@linaro.org>

On 7/28/22 09:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

[...]

>>>>> The problem with existing approach is:
>>>>> 1. Lack of any probe ordering or probe deferral support.
>>>>> 2. Lack of any other dependencies, e.g. for PM.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "lack of probe deferral support".
>>>> We have qcom_scm_is_available() and defer probe if that fails. So
>>>> deferral works, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
>>>
>>> And how do you differentiate that qcom_scm_is_available() failed because
>>> it is not yet available (defer probe) or it is broken and will never
>>> load? All regular consumer-provider interfaces have it sorted out.
>>
>> Fair point. By shifting that to device links you'll at least know what
>> it's waiting for and the driver won't attempt to probe until that's
>> resolved. But your question applies to that then as well: How do you
>> differentiate between the device link or supplier being broken somehow
>> and the supplier being just not ready yet?
> 
> For example like tegra_bpmp_get() is doing.

But tegra_bpmp_get() can also not differentiate whether the supplier driver is
ever going to be successfully probed or not. I'm not sure you can ever really
solve that. The only thing it does in addition is check whether the phandle and
device is there. Or do you mean those not being present by "broken"? That's a
point I agree should be improved with SCM.

Regards,
Max