Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758142Ab3IBH27 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2013 03:28:59 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]:59763 "EHLO mail-vc0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757269Ab3IBH25 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2013 03:28:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2081838.eZHRxlDf7s@flatron> References: <1377770268-14014-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <1377770268-14014-2-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <2081838.eZHRxlDf7s@flatron> From: Alexandre Courbot Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:28:36 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] ARM: add basic Trusted Foundations support To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Alexandre Courbot , Stephen Warren , Russell King - ARM Linux , Dave Martin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1912 Lines: 62 Hi Tomasz! On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible : "tl,trusted-foundations" >> +- version-major : major version number of Trusted Foundations firmware >> +- version-minor: minor version number of Trusted Foundations firmware > > Hmm, maybe you could simply define a single version property that could > have multiple cells? Like: > > firmware { > compatible = "tl,trusted-foundations"; > version = <2 8>; > }; I'm fine this way too, but do we have other bindings that use the same scheme? What is the general convention for version number bindings? >> + This option allows the kernel to invoke the secure monitor > whenever >> + required on devices using Trusted Foundations. >> + >> + Devices using Trusted Foundations should pass a device tree >> containing + a node compatible with "tl,trusted-foundations" to >> signal the presence + of the secure monitor. > > What about pointing to the documentation file instead? Yes, that would make more sense. >> +void of_register_trusted_foundations(void) >> +{ >> + struct device_node *node; >> + >> + node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "tl,trusted- > foundations"); > > nit: > if (!node) > return; Fixed, thanks. >> +static inline void register_trusted_foundations( >> + struct > trusted_foundations_platform_data *pd) >> +{ >> + pr_crit("No support for Trusted Foundations, stopping...\n"); >> + BUG(); > > Hmm, why not simply panic()? Fixed that too. Thanks for the review! Alex. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/