Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] firmware: qcom: scm: Register gunyah watchdog device

[Pavan Kondeti]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > +
> > > +	platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > +	struct device_node *np;
> > > +	bool of_wdt_available;
> > > +	int i;
> > > +	uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> > 
> > static const?
> > 
> > > +				       0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > +	static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > +		"qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > +		"arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > +	};
> > > +
> > > +	/* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > +	if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > +		return;
> > 
> > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> > 
> 
> Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> 

Dmitry / Bjorn,

We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency

- QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
  QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.

- Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver 

- Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
  for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c

We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
you think otherwise.

Thanks,
Pavan