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:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:37:23 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@quicinc.com>
Cc:     cristian.marussi@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Allow parameter in smc/hvc calls
Message-ID: <20230412083723.r4vnkl3c7ykauzps@bogus>
References: <20230409181918.29270-1-quic_nkela@quicinc.com>
 <20230410182058.8949-1-quic_nkela@quicinc.com>
 <20230411130136.lkblyfg3jaeitzrt@bogus>
 <ef3ae792-8900-d4c4-7fba-cbfc636a0315@quicinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ef3ae792-8900-d4c4-7fba-cbfc636a0315@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 07:42:50AM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote:

> that's a good suggestion. Any solution you propose shouldn't just limit to
> only one parameter. IMO, there should be some way to pass all 6 parameters
> since we do have a use case of at least two parameters.

Please elaborate on your use-case.

> The shmem proposal is fine however please also incorporate passing of other
> parameters.

You are missing the point here. SMC/HVC is just a doorbell and the main point
I made earlier is that there is no need for vendors to try colourful things
here if it is not necessary. So no, I don't want any extra bindings or more
than one param is that is not needed. I will wait for the reason as requested
above.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep