Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752271AbbDPWDT (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:03:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:35294 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751734AbbDPWDM (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:03:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1428601031-5366-1-git-send-email-galak@codeaurora.org> <20150410100529.GA6854@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150414163613.GM28709@leverpostej> <07185B2C-3F37-4E70-9096-1EF5EA8D68CE@codeaurora.org> <20150414211720.GA56647@MBP> <20150415133403.GB26099@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150416152121.GE819@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:03:12 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add smp booting support for Qualcomm ARMv8 SoCs From: Matt Sealey To: Rob Clark Cc: Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Kumar Gala , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "arm@kernel.org" , "abhimany@codeaurora.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 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: 2394 Lines: 50 Hi Rob, On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Rob Clark wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Catalin Marinas > wrote: > >> But I'm definitely going to discourage companies like Qualcomm >> deliberately ignoring the existing booting protocols while trying to get >> their code upstream. This patch series is posted by Qualcomm without >> providing any technical reason on why they don't want to/couldn't use >> PSCI (well, I guess there is no technical reason but they may not care >> much about mainline either). > > Sure.. just trying to make sure the wrong people don't end up being > the ones that suffer. I would assume/expect that it is at least > possible for qcom to change firmware/bootloader for their dev boards > and future devices and whatnot, whether they grumble about it or not. > But I guess most of what the general public has are devices w/ signed > fw, which is why "go fix your firmware" is an option that sets off > alarm bells for me. > > I guess the first device where this will matter to me and a large > group of community folks would be the dragonboard 410c.. *hopefully* > it does not require signed firmware or at least qcom could make > available signed firmware which supports psci.. For development boards, one would hope there is a way to sign your own firmware. You can't expect - even for a phone SoC - that the development boards require entering some kind of Faustian contract for development of low-level software. What if someone wants to develop a platform that doesn't require signing? That said most of these dev boards have completely mangled JTAG anyway, and I know Inforce (and Hardkernel, and so on) love their barely-ever-updated custom firmware binaries, so.. The best thing would be to pick up one of those boards and port a PSCI firmware to it (ATF or your own..) and just embarrass the SoC vendor by having better mainline power management support (implemented by 10 lines in a device tree) with the complicated code hidden away behind the scenes there, like it should have been done in the first place.. Ta. Matt Sealey -- 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/