Re: qcom firmware / scm interface (was Re: [GIT PULL] qcom SoC changes for v3.20)

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I'd be OK with merging this, send a request and tag. Would that let
>>>> the DRM folks make progress too?
>>>
>>> Will do, I donât think it will address the DRM folks needs as they need access to make firmware calls from the DRM driver.
>>>
>>>> If you need a common place for this, drivers/firmware seems like a
>>>> better home than drivers/soc.
>>>
>>> Agreed, whatâs you take than on moving to use firmware_ops as defined in arch/arm and extended it or just leaving this as a qcom specific firmware interface?
>>
>> Are there any other SoCs out there with similar requirements on
>> firmware interfaces? I think most of them so far have been fairly
>> simple compared to the complexity of the qualcomm firmware.
>>
>> Would it make sense to use firmware_ops for the common pieces and have
>> direct smc calls for the rest? I'm not sure that would buy us all that
>> much. Hm.
>>
>> Well, at least it's an internal implementation detail. If we move it
>> now and find a better way to do it down the road it can be refactored.
>
> So Iâve been looking at the ARM firmware_ops and Iâm not sure it makes much sense to try and contort either the QCOM SCM interface to match or the other way around.  The firmware_ops donât really match what the qcom scm interface exposes and trying to make it would just seem to make the firmware_ops to QCOM specific to be of any value.

Ok. Thanks for investigating.

> Iâll look at cleaning up the SCM code and moving it to drivers/firmware instead of drivers/soc/qcom if that is more desirable.

Yeah, that'd be preferred.


-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/