Message-ID: <cd9a2a9b-f3ef-2a57-bddc-f28511a7f0fb@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 16:03:49 +0530
From:   "Ravi Kumar Bokka (Temp)" <rbokka@...eaurora.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
        dhavalp@...eaurora.org, mturney@...eaurora.org,
        sparate@...eaurora.org, c_rbokka@...eaurora.org,
        mkurumel@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 2/3] drivers: nvmem: Add driver for QTI qfprom-efuse
 support

Hi Doug,
Please find my inline comments.



On 5/14/2020 11:51 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I notice that you didn't respond to any of my feedback [1], only
> Srinivas's.  Any reason why?  It turns out that Srinivas had quite a
> lot of the same feedback as I did, but please make sure you didn't
> miss anything I suggested.  More inline below.
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:26 AM Ravi Kumar Bokka (Temp)
> <rbokka@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Srinivas,
>> Thanks for your feedback by giving review comments. Please find my
>> inline comments.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ravi Kumar.B
>>
>> On 5/13/2020 6:50 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/05/2020 19:17, Ravi Kumar Bokka wrote:
>>>> This patch adds new driver for QTI qfprom-efuse controller. This
>>>> driver can
>>>> access the raw qfprom regions for fuse blowing.
>>>
>>> QTI?
>>
>> guidance I have received from internal Legal/LOST team is that the QCOM
>> prefix needs to be changed to QTI everywhere it is used
> 
> I'll let Srinivas comment if he cares.  I'm really not sure why a
> legal team cares about the Kconfig name in a GPL-licensed Linux
> kernel.
> 

I will maintain Qualcomm Technologies Inc(QTI) in the patch description 
and change Kconfig as you suggested.

>
>>>> The current existed qfprom driver is only supports for cpufreq,
>>>> thermal sensors
>>>> drivers by read out calibration data, speed bins..etc which is stored
>>>> by qfprom efuses.
>>>
>>> Can you explain bit more about this QFPROM instance, Is this QFPROM part
>>> of secure controller address space?
>>> Is this closely tied to SoC or Secure controller version?
>>>
>>> Any reason why this can not be integrated into qfprom driver with
>>> specific compatible.
>>>
>>
>> QFPROM driver communicates with sec_controller address space however
>> scope and functionalities of this driver is different and not limited as
>> existing qfprom fuse Read-Only driver for specific “fuse buckets’ like
>> cpufreq, thermal sensors etc. QFPROM fuse write driver in this patch
>> requires specific sequence to write/blow fuses unlike other driver.
>> Scope/functionalities are different and this is separate driver.
> 
> If the underlying IP blocks are the same it should be one driver and
> it should just work in read-only mode for the other range of stuff.
> 
Based on the compatible, do i need to separate probe function for 
qfprom-efuse and maintain separate nvmem object to register nvmem 
framework. Is this what you are suggesting to implementing this in to 
one existing driver?
Do I need to maintain separate efuse dt node?

Could you please suggest me to proceed further.

> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Bokka <rbokka@...eaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/nvmem/Kconfig        |  10 +
>>>>    drivers/nvmem/Makefile       |   2 +
>>>>    drivers/nvmem/qfprom-efuse.c | 476
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    3 files changed, 488 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/nvmem/qfprom-efuse.c
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom-efuse.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom-efuse.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..2e3c275
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom-efuse.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,476 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2020, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/io.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/nvmem-provider.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +#define QFPROM_BLOW_STATUS_BUSY 0x1
>>>> +#define QFPROM_BLOW_STATUS_READY 0x0
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Blow timer clock frequency in Mhz for 10nm LPe technology */
>>>> +#define QFPROM_BLOW_TIMER_OFFSET 0x03c
>>>> +#define QFPROM_BLOW_TIMER_RESET_VALUE 0x0
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Amount of time required to hold charge to blow fuse in
>>>> micro-seconds */
>>>> +#define QFPROM_FUSE_BLOW_POLL_PERIOD 100
>>>> +#define QFPROM_BLOW_STATUS_OFFSET 0x048
>>>> +
>>>> +#define QFPROM_ACCEL_OFFSET 0x044
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * struct qfprom_efuse_platform_data - structure holding qfprom-efuse
>>>> + * platform data
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @name: qfprom-efuse compatible name
>>>
>>> ??
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change
>>
>>>> + * @fuse_blow_time_in_us: Should contain the wait time when doing the
>>>> fuse blow
>>>> + * @accel_value: Should contain qfprom accel value
>>>> + * @accel_reset_value: The reset value of qfprom accel value
>>>> + * @qfprom_blow_timer_value: The timer value of qfprom when doing
>>>> efuse blow
>>>> + * @qfprom_blow_reset_freq: The frequency required to set when fuse
>>>> blowing
>>>> + * is done
>>>> + * @qfprom_blow_set_freq: The frequency required to set when we start
>>>> the
>>>> + * fuse blowing
>>>> + * @qfprom_max_vol: max voltage required to set fuse blow
>>>> + * @qfprom_min_vol: min voltage required to set fuse blow
>>>
>>> How specific are these values per SoC?
>>>
>>
>> This voltage level may change based on SoC and/or fuse-hardware
>> technology, it would change for SoC with different technology, hence we
>> have kept it in SOC specific settings.
> 
> Generally I'd expect the SoC specific settings to be in the device
> tree.  Drivers don't need to specify this.  Please respond to the
> comments I posed in my review.
> 

Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.

> 
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct qfprom_efuse_platform_data {
>>>> +    const char *name;
>>>> +    u8 fuse_blow_time_in_us;
>>>> +    u32 accel_value;
>>>> +    u32 accel_reset_value;
>>>> +    u32 qfprom_blow_timer_value;
>>>> +    u32 qfprom_blow_reset_freq;
>>>> +    u32 qfprom_blow_set_freq;
>>>> +    u32 qfprom_max_vol;
>>>> +    u32 qfprom_min_vol;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * struct qfprom_efuse_priv - structure holding qfprom-efuse attributes
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @qfpbase: iomapped memory space for qfprom base
>>>> + * @qfpraw: iomapped memory space for qfprom raw fuse region
>>>> + * @qfpmap: iomapped memory space for qfprom fuse blow timer
>>>> +
>>>> + * @dev: qfprom device structure
>>>> + * @secclk: clock supply
>>>> + * @vcc: regulator supply
>>>> +
>>>> + * @qfpraw_start: qfprom raw fuse start region
>>>> + * @qfpraw_end: qfprom raw fuse end region
>>>> + * @qfprom_efuse_platform_data: qfprom platform data
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct qfprom_efuse_priv {
>>>> +    void __iomem *qfpbase;
>>>> +    void __iomem *qfpraw;
>>>> +    void __iomem *qfpmap;
>>>
>>> Why are these memory regions split? Can't you just have complete qfprom
>>> area and add fixed offset for qfpraw within the driver?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.
>> I have separated this memory regions because to identify raw fuse
>> regions separately and compare these raw fuse regions from the user
>> given input.
> 
> How are you addressing?  Can you go back to just having one range?  If
> you need to know where the raw fuse region is inside your range just
> put the offset in the of_match data.
> 

I will maintain one range as suggested reg = <0 0x00780000 0 0x2100>.

> 
>>>> +    struct device *dev;
>>>> +    struct clk *secclk;
>>>> +    struct regulator *vcc;
>>>> +    resource_size_t qfpraw_start;
>>>> +    resource_size_t qfpraw_end;
>>> Why do we need to check this range? as long as we set the nvmem_config
>>> with correct range then you should not need this check.
>>>
>>
>> There is no harm in this explicit check in QFPROM-fuse driver and based
>> on internal review with our security team, this check is important to
>> avoid dependency on other upper layer.
> 
> There is harm: it adds extra complexity.  Please remove.
> 
> You are talking as if it was somehow important for this code to be the
> same as the code on other OSes / in other contexts.  It isn't.  This
> is a Linux driver and it should not be written to duplicate stuff that
> Linux is already doing.
> 

This for your feedback. I will address this change.

> 
>>>> +    struct qfprom_efuse_platform_data efuse;
>>> A pointer here should be good enough?
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * sets the value of the blow timer, accel register and the clock
>>>> + * and voltage settings
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_efuse_priv
>>>> *priv)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +    ret = qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing(priv);
>>>> +    if (ret) {
>>>> +        dev_err(priv->dev, "qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing()\n");
>>>> +        return ret;
>>>> +    }
>>>
>>> Why do we need to qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing() for every call to enable
>>> it?
>>>
>>> Or are we missing some error handling in the caller?
>>>
>>
>> We must disable/vote-off this QFPROM fuse power rail after blowing fuse,
>> it is the safe and right approach as per hardware programming guide for
>> fuse blowing process. Caller here is user space, can’t control
>> fuse-power-rail or can’t be relied to follow the required process. There
>> could also be unnecessary risk of leaving the vote/power-rail configured
>> at specific level after blowing the fuse. As per hardware requirement,
>> right after fuse blowing, we need to disable power rail.
> 
> Please remove your disable here.  Though the user initiates the call
> you can still rely on Linux to make sure two users aren't trying to
> blow fuses at the same time.  The Linux driver should always leave
> things in a "disabled" state and you can rely on that.
> 
> ...besides the only way you aren't hitting an underflow on the
> regulator enable count is that you are constantly enabling over and
> over again.
> 

I will address this change.

> 
>>>> +
>>>> +    writel(priv->efuse.qfprom_blow_timer_value, priv->qfpmap +
>>>> +           QFPROM_BLOW_TIMER_OFFSET);
>>>> +    writel(priv->efuse.accel_value, priv->qfpmap + QFPROM_ACCEL_OFFSET);
>>>> +
>>>> +    ret = qfprom_set_clock_settings(priv);
>>>> +    if (ret) {
>>>> +        dev_err(priv->dev, "qpfrom_set_clock_settings()\n");
>>>> +        return ret;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    ret = qfprom_set_voltage_settings(priv, priv->efuse.qfprom_min_vol,
>>>> +                      priv->efuse.qfprom_max_vol);
>>>> +    if (ret) {
>>>> +        dev_err(priv->dev, "qfprom_set_voltage_settings()\n");
>>>> +        return ret;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> <<
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * verifying to make sure address being written or read is from qfprom
>>>> + * raw address range
>>>> + */
>>>> +bool addr_in_qfprom_range(const struct qfprom_efuse_priv *priv, u32 reg,
>>>> +              size_t bytes)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    if (((reg + bytes) > reg) && (reg >= priv->qfpraw_start) &&
>>>> +        ((reg + bytes) <= priv->qfpraw_end)) {
>>>> +        return 1;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>   >>
>>> Above function is totally redundant, nvmem core already has checks for
>>> this.
>>>
>>
>> There is no harm in this explicit check in QFPROM-fuse driver and based
>> on internal review with our security team, this check is important to
>> avoid dependency on other upper layer.
> 
> Please remove.  You are a Linux driver.
> 

I will address this change.

> 
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * API for reading from raw qfprom region
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int qfprom_efuse_reg_read(void *context, unsigned int reg,
>>>> void *_val,
>>>> +                 size_t bytes)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct qfprom_efuse_priv *priv = context;
>>>> +    u32 *value = _val;
>>>> +    u32 align_check;
>>>> +    int i = 0, words = bytes / 4;
>>>> +
>>>> +    dev_info(priv->dev,
>>>> +         "reading raw qfprom region offset: 0x%08x of size: %zd\n",
>>>> +         reg, bytes);
>>>
>>> In general there is lot of debug info across the code, do you really
>>> need all this? Consider removing these!
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (bytes % 4 != 0x00) {
>>>> +        dev_err(priv->dev,
>>>> +            "Bytes: %zd to read should be word align\n",
>>>> +            bytes);
>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>> +    }
>>>
>>> This word align check is also redundant once you set nvmem_config with
>>> correct word_size.
>>>
>>
>> I understand that there may be different approach to handle this. We
>> have used this approach and tested this driver thoroughly. Unless there
>> is technical limitation, changing this word_size would end up requiring
>> re-writing write/read APIs and going through testing again, there is not
>> much difference in either approach, we would like to keep this approach
>> unless there is technical concern.
> 
> The driver isn't done until it lands in Linux.  While it's important
> to test the driver before posting upstream it is completely expected
> and normal that then posting upstream you will be asked to change
> things.  After you change things you will need to re-test.  The fact
> that you already tested this the old way is not an excuse.  Please
> fix.
> 

Thanks for your feedback, i will address this change.

> 
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (!addr_in_qfprom_range(priv, reg, bytes)) {
>>>> +        dev_err(priv->dev,
>>>> +            "Invalid qfprom raw region offset 0x%08x & bytes %zd\n",
>>>> +            reg, bytes);
>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    align_check = (reg & 0xF);
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (((align_check & ~3) == align_check) && value != NULL)
>>>> +        while (words--)
>>>> +            *value++ = readl(priv->qfpbase + reg + (i++ * 4));
>>>> +
>>>> +    else
>>>> +        dev_err(priv->dev,
>>>> +            "Invalid input parameter 0x%08x fuse blow address\n",
>>>> +            reg);
>>>> +
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>> +}
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int qfprom_efuse_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>> +    struct resource *qfpbase, *qfpraw, *qfpmap;
>>>> +    struct nvmem_device *nvmem;
>>>> +    struct nvmem_config *econfig;
>>>> +    struct qfprom_efuse_priv *priv;
>>>> +    const struct qfprom_efuse_platform_data *drvdata;
>>>> +    int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +    dev_info(&pdev->dev, "[%s]: Invoked\n", __func__);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> too much debug!
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.
>>
>>>> +    drvdata = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>>>> +    if (!drvdata)
>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>> Unnecessary check as this driver will not be probed unless there is a
>>> compatible match.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +    if (!priv)
>>>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv->efuse.fuse_blow_time_in_us = drvdata->fuse_blow_time_in_us;
>>>> +    priv->efuse.accel_value = drvdata->accel_value;
>>>> +    priv->efuse.accel_reset_value = drvdata->accel_reset_value;
>>>> +    priv->efuse.qfprom_blow_timer_value =
>>>> drvdata->qfprom_blow_timer_value;
>>>> +    priv->efuse.qfprom_blow_reset_freq =
>>>> drvdata->qfprom_blow_reset_freq;
>>>> +    priv->efuse.qfprom_blow_set_freq = drvdata->qfprom_blow_set_freq;
>>>> +    priv->efuse.qfprom_max_vol = drvdata->qfprom_max_vol;
>>>> +    priv->efuse.qfprom_min_vol = drvdata->qfprom_min_vol;
>>>> +    priv->dev = dev;
>>>> +
>>>> +    qfpbase = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv->qfpbase = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, qfpbase);
>>>> +    if (IS_ERR(priv->qfpbase)) {
>>>> +        ret = PTR_ERR(priv->qfpbase);
>>>> +        goto err;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    qfpraw = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1);
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv->qfpraw = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, qfpraw);
>>>> +    if (IS_ERR(priv->qfpraw)) {
>>>> +        ret = PTR_ERR(priv->qfpraw);
>>>> +        goto err;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv->qfpraw_start = qfpraw->start - qfpbase->start;
>>>> +    priv->qfpraw_end = qfpraw->end - qfpbase->start;
>>>> +
>>>> +    qfpmap = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 2);
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv->qfpmap = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, qfpmap);
>>>> +    if (IS_ERR(priv->qfpmap)) {
>>>> +        ret = PTR_ERR(priv->qfpmap);
>>>> +        goto err;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv->vcc = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vcc");
>>>
>>> I see no reference to this regulator in dt bindings.
>>
>> This perameter kept in board specific file i.e., sc7180-idp.dts file
> 
> Yes, but it still needs to be in the bindings.
> 

Thanks for your feedback. i will address this change.

> 
>>>> +    if (IS_ERR(priv->vcc)) {
>>>> +        ret = PTR_ERR(priv->vcc);
>>>> +        if (ret == -ENODEV)
>>>> +            ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>> Can you explain what is going on here?
>>>
>>
>> As i took other drivers reference, i have kept this check.
> 
> Then other drivers are wrong.  Please remove.
> 

Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.

> 
>>>> +
>>>> +        goto err;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    priv->secclk = devm_clk_get(dev, "secclk");
>>>> +    if (IS_ERR(priv->secclk)) {
>>>> +        ret = PTR_ERR(priv->secclk);
>>>> +        if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>>> +            dev_err(dev, "secclk error getting : %d\n", ret);
>>>> +        goto err;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->secclk);
>>>> +    if (ret) {
>>>> +        dev_err(dev, "clk_prepare_enable() failed\n");
>>>> +        goto err;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    econfig = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*econfig), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +    if (!econfig)
>>> Why not disabling the clk here?
>>>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +    econfig->dev = dev;
>>>> +    econfig->name = "qfprom-efuse";
>>>> +    econfig->stride = 1;
>>>> +    econfig->word_size = 1;
>>>> +    econfig->reg_read = qfprom_efuse_reg_read;
>>>> +    econfig->reg_write = qfprom_efuse_reg_write;
>>>> +    econfig->size = resource_size(qfpraw);
>>>> +    econfig->priv = priv;
>>>> +
>>>> +    nvmem = devm_nvmem_register(dev, econfig);
>>>> +
>>>> +    return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(nvmem);
>>> probably you should check the nvmem here before returning to disable the
>>> clk properly.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +err:
>>>> +    clk_disable_unprepare(priv->secclk);
>>>> +    return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct qfprom_efuse_platform_data sc7180_qfp_efuse_data = {
>>>> +    .name = "sc7180-qfprom-efuse",
>>> Redundant.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I will address this change.
>>
>>>> +    .fuse_blow_time_in_us = 10,
>>>> +    .accel_value = 0xD10,
>>>> +    .accel_reset_value = 0x800,
>>>> +    .qfprom_blow_timer_value = 25,
>>>> +    .qfprom_blow_reset_freq = 19200000,
>>>> +    .qfprom_blow_set_freq = 4800000,
>>>> +    .qfprom_max_vol = 1904000,
>>>> +    .qfprom_min_vol = 1800000,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct of_device_id qfprom_efuse_of_match[] = {
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-qfprom-efuse",
>>>> +        .data = &sc7180_qfp_efuse_data
>>>> +    },
>>>> +    {/* sentinel */},
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qfprom_efuse_of_match);
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct platform_driver qfprom_efuse_driver = {
>>>> +    .probe = qfprom_efuse_probe,
>>>> +    .driver = {
>>>> +        .name = "sc7180-qfprom-efuse",
>>>> +        .of_match_table = qfprom_efuse_of_match,
>>>> +    },
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +module_platform_driver(qfprom_efuse_driver);
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("QTI QFPROM Efuse driver");
>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Qualcomm INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
>> member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=UZQRfBTbh2CLnwsRSpbXFf=8iF2MG20hdj47s42aP8HQ@mail.gmail.com
> 


Regards,
Ravi Kumar.B

-- 
Qualcomm INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists