Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2020 18:09:23 +0100 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: fix psci dependency |
| |
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:21:36PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:04:21PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:08:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > When CONFIG_ARM_PSCI_FW is disabled but CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC is enabled, > > > arm-scmi runs into a link failure: > > > > > > arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.o: in function `smc_send_message': > > > smc.c:(.text+0x200): undefined reference to `arm_smccc_1_1_get_conduit' > > > > > > Use an inline helper to default to version v1.0 in the absence of psci. > > > > > > > Thanks for fixing this. I was thinking if we can separate PSCI and SMCCC > > quickly as a fix for this but I think he needs to be discussed in detail. > > > > I am fine with this fix as is and happy to apply to my tree if no one > > objects. > > > > Sorry but taking this patch as opportunity to discuss how to carry the > > dependency in future. Just a proposal, > > > > 1. Introduce a DT node for SMCCC v1.2+ > > 2. The new SMCCC driver(strictly speaking library/few APIs) can probe > > independent of PSCI if DT node is present > > 3. Else we fallback on PSCI and detect the SMCCC version for v1.1 and > > v1.2 > > 4. Assume v1.0 if > > a. PSCI FEATURE returns NOT_SUPPORTED for ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_FUNC_ID > > b. CONFIG_ARM_PSCI{,_FW} is not defined > > > > Mark/Will/Marc, > > > > Any other use-case config missed above ? > > Do we need to support SMCCC without PSCI? Is anyone goingto build a > sysyem with SMCCC but no PSCI functionality? >
May be arm32 using all new fancy specification we may come up to solve certain areas but continue to use legacy boot/power methods. I may be wrong. E.g: Today we enable HAVE_ARM_SMCCC for armv7 and above but not all have PSCI enabled.
> If not, then given we can always probe SMCCC from PSCI (for both ACPI > and DT), I'd prefer to support only support doing things that way > around. i.e. have SMCCC depend on PSCI. >
OK, but we still have above config.
> Otherwise I suspect we're inviting more problems than a dependency on > PSCI. >
Agreed and I am happy to keep it as is.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |