[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <528A4869.2020701@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:03:37 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
CC: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: move firmware_ops to drivers/firmware
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?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists