linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 0/5] firmware: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol driver

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2016 21:19:36 +0300
From:   Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>
To:     Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Andrew F . Davis" <afd@...com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
        David Griego <david.griego@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/5] firmware: Add support for TI System Control
 Interface (TI-SCI) protocol driver

On 08/09/16 20:31, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> writes:
>
>> On 09/07/2016 01:55 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> writes:
>>
>> [...] full mail thread in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747
>>
>>>> Overall architecture is very similar to SCPI[4] as follows:
>>>
>>> Dumb Q: I'm curious about the limitations in SCPI that were found that
>>> made TI decided to implement its own version.
>
> [...]
>
>> Long story short, investigation was done into what SCPI was providing
>> (TI internal ofcourse) and SCPI did not fit our SoC generation needs -
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation.  Very helpful.
>
> To be clear, I'm not a proponent of always using ARM "standards"
> (especially when it's not exactly clear if it's a standard or a Juno
> thing) but I'm seeing several SoCs come out with SCPI derivatives, or
> old ARM versions etc., so was just curious about the decision making
> process.
>
> Thanks for sharing,
>
> Kevin

So, any other comments for this series or shall we still try to get it 
merged for 4.9? We are -rc5 so it might be too late already and probably 
better to push this for 4.10.

-Tero