linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm QSEECOM interface

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:   Tue, 2 May 2023 12:57:42 +0200
From:   Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm QSEECOM
 interface

On 5/2/23 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 23:44, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 3/8/23 23:16, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 03:21:18AM +0100, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>>>> Add bindings for the Qualcomm Secure Execution Environment interface
>>>> (QSEECOM).
>>>
>>> Pretty sure I already asked, but no answer in the commit message. Why do
>>> we need this? You've already declared the platform supports SCM calls
>>> with "qcom,scm". Why can't you probe whether you have QSEECOM or not? DT
>>> is for non-discoverable h/w we are stuck with.
>>
>> Yes, you've asked this before but I can only repeat what I've written in
>> my last response to your question: I am not aware of any way to properly
>> discover the interface at runtime from software.
>>
>> If it makes you happy, I can put this in the commit message as well...
> 
> Yes, please, because commit msg should answer to "why we are doing
> this", when this is not obvious. If the reviewer asks the same twice it
> means it is not obvious.

Thanks. Hopefully I can manage to tie that (reliably) to qcom,scm and we
don't need the specific compatible for v4 any more. I will try to be more
descriptive for the next set of patches though.

Regards,
Max