linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <528A47B0.1090800@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:00:32 -0700
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
CC:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware

On 11/17/2013 08:59 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 17 November 2013 08:49, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> wrote:
>> The ARM tree includes a firmware_ops interface that is designed to
>> implement support for simple, TrustZone-based firmwares but could
>> also cover other use-cases. It has been suggested that this
>> interface might be useful to other architectures (e.g. arm64) and
>> that it should be moved out of arch/arm.
> 
> NAK. I'm for code sharing with arm via common locations but this API
> goes against the ARMv8 firmware standardisation efforts like PSCI,
> encouraging each platform to define there own non-standard interface.

Surely PSCI is *an* implementation of firmware_ops?

Couldn't firmware_ops be relevant to non-ARM architectures too? If so,
that would support my previous point; we're presumably not requiring
non-ARM architectures to implement PSCI?

On a practical note, unless ARM mandates by ARM architecture licensing
condition that mechanisms other than PSCI are not allowed, then they're
going to exist even if the upstream Linux community doesn't like it.
History has certainly shown that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/