[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220726154138.74avqs6iqlzqpzjk@bogus>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:41:38 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm UEFI Secure
Application client
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 05:15:41PM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>
> So ultimately I think it's better to add a DT entry for it.
I disagree for the reason that once you discover more apps running on the
secure side, you want to add more entries and update DT on the platform
every time you discover some new firmware entity and you wish to interact
with it from the non-secure side.
As along as get this application ID can handle any random name, I prefer
to use that as the discover mechanism and not have this DT.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists