Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2020 17:22:42 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: fix psci dependency |
| |
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:04:21PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > 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 really gain much by separating PSCI from SMCCC? In other words, why do we care about allowing them to be selected independently?
Will
| |