linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/7] firmware: arm_scmi: Add QCOM vendor protocol

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]

Message-ID: <ZeCRxP9PnHK_UFK7@bogus>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:16:36 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Cc: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
	jassisinghbrar@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	quic_rgottimu@...cinc.com, quic_kshivnan@...cinc.com,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, Amir Vajid <avajid@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/7] firmware: arm_scmi: Add QCOM vendor protocol

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:39:19PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile
> > index a7bc4796519c..eaeb788b93c6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile
> > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL) += scmi-core.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL) += scmi-module.o
> >  
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_POWER_CONTROL) += scmi_power_control.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_SCMI_VENDOR_PROTOCOL) += qcom_scmi_vendor.o
> >  
> 
> I am starting to think to put vendor protocols in their own dedicated
> subdir given that a bunch of those appeared recently :D
> 

Yes I tend to agree with different subdir for each vendor. Not sure if we
need new Kconfig entry or just use ARCH_<vendor/group of SoC> to build all
subdir used by that vendor.

> ....have to discuss with Sudeep...anyway not really an issue...
> 
> any thoughts about this ?

In general, I see lot of discussions on this thread when I was away for
past 3 weeks. I will wait for newer version as that seems simpler for me
than getting lost to follow the discussions so far.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep