[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vvvq5rnbzs7ngtahqrar4iqinizthyrv3ipqnjp6ln34di365j@bbwdyda6gw3u>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 18:44:23 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Trilok Soni <trilokkumar.soni@....qualcomm.com>,
Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <satya.prabhala@....qualcomm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, trilok.soni@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: default ARM_SMCCC_SOC_ID to disabled
On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 02:53:42PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:50PM -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:31:23PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > To me, when you decided to add a second caller to soc_device_register()
> > you created a regression in the userspace interface. If nothing else
> > it's a leaky abstraction.
> >
>
> In that case, shouldn't soc_device_register() made to give error when an
> attempt to call it more that one time then ? Also should be change the
> ABI documents to refer it as soc0 and not socX ?
Then the whole SoC bus is an overkill. But I have a strange question
here. Consider the device having the "BT / WiFi SoC" next to the main
SoC. Is that SoC a legit target to export informaiton through sysfs /
soc bus?
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists