From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751652Ab3KRRDq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:03:46 -0500
Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:44295 "EHLO
	avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751571Ab3KRRDl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:03:41 -0500
Message-ID: <528A4869.2020701@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:03:37 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
CC: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
        "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
	<linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware
References: <1384678169-28228-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <CAHkRjk5LBOFx3ir49RgEsaFwvp5UCpTjYFWto+URXebAsOP0RA@mail.gmail.com> <52898417.80601@nvidia.com> <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131118115842.GE4050@arm.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/18/2013 04:58 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
...
> Of course, trusted foundations interface could be plugged into cpu_ops
> on arm64 but I will NAK it on the grounds of not using the PSCI API, nor
> the SMC calling convention (and it's easy to fix when porting to ARMv8).
> If a supported standard API is used, then there is no need for
> additional code in the kernel.

What happens when someone takes an existing working secure-mode SW stack
and simply re-uses it on some new ARMv8 SoC. Are you going to force
people working on upstream to re-write the secure mode firmware in
shipped hardware before allowing upstream kernel support?