Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] ARM: support for Trusted Foundations secure monitor

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 05:38 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/07/2013 03:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just a set of small fixes to address the concerns expressed on v9 with
>>>> the
>>>> non-prefixed version DT properties. I hope there won't be a need for an
>>>> eleventh (!) version. :P
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, this version looks fine to me. On IRC, Olof said it looked OK to
>>> him. I'm just waiting to hear back from Olof/Russell whether I should
>>> merge this through the Tegra tree, or whether the first 1-3 patches
>>> should go through Russell's tree.
>>
>>
>> I pinged Russell, and he brought up the fact that there were earlier
>> requests to move it to drivers/firmware. It would make sense to try to
>> get that done before merging, especially if you anticipate someone
>> using TF on 64-bit platforms.
>
>
> IIRC when we discussed this point your last comment was as follows:

Touche. :) Thanks for the reminder.

> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think we can probably merge this under arch/arm now, and when we
>> figure out what needs to be common with ARM64 we can move it out to a
>> good location. It might be that mostly just a header file with ABI
>> conventions needs to be shared, not actual implementation, for
>> example.
>
> So I thought we agreed on that. If in the end we prefer to move the ARM
> firmware interface into drivers/firmware, I'm fine with that too (Tomasz
> also confirmed he would be ok with it) but I wonder if that would not be
> somehow premature.
>
> Another worry of mine is that this might delay this patchset some more.
> Support for TF is one of the last remaining step towards making NVIDIA
> branded Tegra retail devices (SHIELD and TegraNote at the moment) run
> upstream directly. I missed 3.13, I'd like to make sure I won't miss 3.14.
> Would it be acceptable if we move the ARM firmware interface to a common
> place after this patchset is merged?

Well, as I already said I'm ok with things going into arch/arm to
start with, as long as Russell is. Once we see 64-bit needs for the
same we'll move it out -- it's not like it's a whole lot of code to
start with. But Russell has veto on the topic. :-)

Russell still has his pull requests outstanding so I'm not sure where
things are at, but I don't think this will miss 3.14 at this rate.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/