From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751290Ab3KRG22 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 01:28:28 -0500 Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:15688 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750714Ab3KRG2V (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 01:28:21 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:22:27 -0800 Message-ID: <5289B37E.2030208@nvidia.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:28:14 +0900 From: Alex Courbot Organization: NVIDIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Courbot , Olof Johansson , Russell King , Stephen Warren CC: Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Kevin Hilman , Pawel Moll , Arnd Bergmann , Tomasz Figa , Ian Campbell , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , Dave Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] ARM: support for Trusted Foundations secure monitor References: <1383819106-1400-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <52828EF5.6090909@wwwdotorg.org> <5282E068.1070608@nvidia.com> <52842553.2080807@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: X-NVConfidentiality: public Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/17/2013 06:03 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alex Courbot wrote: >> On 11/14/2013 02:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alex Courbot wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/13/2013 05:38 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Warren >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/07/2013 03:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a set of small fixes to address the concerns expressed on v9 with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> non-prefixed version DT properties. I hope there won't be a need for >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> eleventh (!) version. :P >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, this version looks fine to me. On IRC, Olof said it looked OK to >>>>>> him. I'm just waiting to hear back from Olof/Russell whether I should >>>>>> merge this through the Tegra tree, or whether the first 1-3 patches >>>>>> should go through Russell's tree. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I pinged Russell, and he brought up the fact that there were earlier >>>>> requests to move it to drivers/firmware. It would make sense to try to >>>>> get that done before merging, especially if you anticipate someone >>>>> using TF on 64-bit platforms. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IIRC when we discussed this point your last comment was as follows: >>> >>> >>> Touche. :) Thanks for the reminder. >>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think we can probably merge this under arch/arm now, and when we >>>>> figure out what needs to be common with ARM64 we can move it out to a >>>>> good location. It might be that mostly just a header file with ABI >>>>> conventions needs to be shared, not actual implementation, for >>>>> example. >>>> >>>> >>>> So I thought we agreed on that. If in the end we prefer to move the ARM >>>> firmware interface into drivers/firmware, I'm fine with that too (Tomasz >>>> also confirmed he would be ok with it) but I wonder if that would not be >>>> somehow premature. >>>> >>>> Another worry of mine is that this might delay this patchset some more. >>>> Support for TF is one of the last remaining step towards making NVIDIA >>>> branded Tegra retail devices (SHIELD and TegraNote at the moment) run >>>> upstream directly. I missed 3.13, I'd like to make sure I won't miss >>>> 3.14. >>>> Would it be acceptable if we move the ARM firmware interface to a common >>>> place after this patchset is merged? >>> >>> >>> Well, as I already said I'm ok with things going into arch/arm to >>> start with, as long as Russell is. Once we see 64-bit needs for the >>> same we'll move it out -- it's not like it's a whole lot of code to >>> start with. But Russell has veto on the topic. :-) >> >> >> Thanks Olof. Russell, are you ok with the patchset in its current form? I >> can start moving the firmware interface out of arch/arm if that's what you >> want (there is no user outside of ARM at the moment, but as Olof pointed out >> that's not too much code) but I'd really like to see this series secured for >> 3.14. > > Never mind, I have submitted a patch that moves firmware_ops to > drivers/firmware, that will hopefully settle this issue. Then maybe we > can finally flush this series as well (I will need to resubmit a new > version though). ... and that patch is very likely to not make it, for (I think) valid reasons. Thus I'm not quite sure where we are with this series now.