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

[Alex Courbot]

On 11/17/2013 06:03 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 11/14/2013 02:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > 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. :-)
> >
> >
> > Thanks Olof. Russell, are you ok with the patchset in its current form? I
> > can start moving the firmware interface out of arch/arm if that's what you
> > want (there is no user outside of ARM at the moment, but as Olof pointed out
> > that's not too much code) but I'd really like to see this series secured for
> > 3.14.
>
> Never mind, I have submitted a patch that moves firmware_ops to
> drivers/firmware, that will hopefully settle this issue. Then maybe we
> can finally flush this series as well (I will need to resubmit a new
> version though).

... and that patch is very likely to not make it, for (I think) valid 
reasons. Thus I'm not quite sure where we are with this series now.
--
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/