Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/pseries: Correct secvar format representation for static key management

[Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 15:27 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> 
> > It might be better to use something like "ibm,plpks-sb-static" in
> > place
> > of "ibm,plpks-sb-v0" to make it instantly clear that static mode
> > doesn't use the same version numbering scheme as dynamic mode.
> 
> Yes, "ibm,plpks-sb-static" is more clear compared to "ibm,plpks-sb-
> v0".  
> However, I am not sure why "static mode doesn't use the same version 
> numbering scheme as dynamic mode". Infact, as per my understanding, 
> it 
> is part of same versioning system. "0 represent static, 1 represent 
> dynamic and anything beyond 1 would mean dynamic with additional
> features".
> 
> Also, wouldn't having "ibm,pkpks-sb-static" and then "ibm,pkpk-sb-v1"
> for dynamic would be bit confusing? I mean being static is clear, but
> what they relate v1 to? Or did you mean to have "ibm,plpks-sb-static"
> and "ibm,plpks-sb-dynamic"  for the two modes?
> 

I don't feel strongly about this, as long as it's well documented.

-- 
Andrew Donnellan    OzLabs, ADL Canberra
ajd@linux.ibm.com   IBM Australia Limited