Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 15:55:08 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        james.quinlan@broadcom.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, etienne.carriere@linaro.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        tarek.el-sherbiny@arm.com, adrian.slatineanu@arm.com,
        souvik.chakravarty@arm.com, wleavitt@marvell.com,
        wbartczak@marvell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] firmware: arm_scmi: Make use of FastChannels
 configurable
Message-ID: <20220701145508.xw3zbhldi7lvcwgd@bogus>
References: <20220627123038.1427067-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20220627123038.1427067-6-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20220701140307.upgfn4qpxhl63syg@bogus>
 <Yr8GsvW+cnf3PkSG@e120937-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yr8GsvW+cnf3PkSG@e120937-lin>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:47:20PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:

[...]

> ... regarding why, I am using personally this indeed for testing with or
> without FCs without having to change the installed FW blob, BUT the reason
> for upstreaming such an option is that FC support is indeed optional by the
> spec so I thought it would have been acceptabel that you could want to
> configure a platform NOT to use them even though the FW implementation you
> are using, maybe across multiple platforms, supports it.

Yes it is optional. But we use only if F/W advertises that it is available,
so no harm if it is not implemented right ? I don't believe it will save
space in the way config is used and I don't want to push all the code
under the config too.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep