[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220728112150.hs5el6wufljeoqyy@bogus>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 12:21:50 +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 Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:05:15PM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 7/28/22 10:23, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
> > Worst case I am fine with that as this needs to be one of and future
> > platforms must get their act right in designing their f/w interface.
>
> Again, I fully agree with you that this situation shouldn't exist. But
> reality is sadly different.
>
As I mentioned I don't have final authority to say yes or no to DT bindings.
I have expressed my opinion and I thing allowing this to be generic via DT
bindings gives no incentive to get the firmware story right. Hence I am happy
to see this as one-off driver change and then we more changes are added to
the driver or similar drivers get added in the future, we have a change to
demand what action has been taken to fix the firmware story.
Just adding DT support(which I disagree) will make future platform to just
use it and not get improvements in areas of discovery or query from the
firmware.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists