Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <5dd462dc.1c69fb81.b84c3.e950@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <4b63daf69f7b49ce8304b5cd85e39b22@codeaurora.org>
References: <1573593774-12539-1-git-send-email-eberman@codeaurora.org> <1573593774-12539-2-git-send-email-eberman@codeaurora.org> <5dcf345b.1c69fb81.df1ea.f7f6@mx.google.com> <4b63daf69f7b49ce8304b5cd85e39b22@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/18] firmware: qcom_scm: Rename macros and structures
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     agross@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org, tsoni@codeaurora.org,
        sidgup@codeaurora.org, psodagud@codeaurora.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To:     eberman@codeaurora.org
User-Agent: alot/0.8.1
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:47:07 -0800
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting eberman@codeaurora.org (2019-11-15 17:19:13)
> On 2019-11-15 15:27, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > ... to here I don't understand why any of it needs to change. It looks
> > like a bunch of churn and it conflates qcom SCM calls with SMCCC which
> > is not desirable. Those two concepts are different.
>=20
> I can see the confusion. The goal with this patch is to make it more=20
> clear which
> macros and structures are for SCM interface from those which deal with=20
> the
> implementation of how an SCM call is implemented with the smc=20
> instruction. It's
> not presently clear that struct qcom_scm_response (for instance) is only
> relevant in the context of legacy convention.
>=20
> I choose the name "legacy" since only older firmwares use it and having
> "scm_buffer_get_command_buffer" seems even more confusing to me! "SMCCC" =

> was
> chosen for lack of a better name.
>=20
> Additionally, the concern with having qcom_scm_ prefix on these=20
> functions
> (especially legacy_get_*_buffer()) is you get long function names which=20
> didn't
> seem desirable. If the long names are preferable, I can update series=20
> with the
> longer form of the names.
>=20

This is the hardest problem in computer science. Figuring out a name.
;-)

Maybe call it scm_buffer_*? Because it _is_ scm communication with
shared buffers? The newer calling convention passes arguments in
registers, but the original calling convention passed a buffer around
from non-secure to secure world and then back again and had a embryonic
register based calling convention. That buffer passing still sort of
happens with the new style but it isn't done unless the register count
is larger than 5 or so and the return buffer isn't unbounded in size
like it was done. It also sort of follows the ARM SMC Calling Convection
spec now.