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:   Thu, 7 Sep 2023 13:40:03 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
To:     Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
Cc:     Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@quicinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
        Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] firmware: Add support for Qualcomm UEFI Secure
 Application
Message-ID: <s6yadwe6zgcim5dhjfo2zwlrd2ac3favmcf7c4y46kmub5pdtm@qwesv7eaajil>
References: <20230827211408.689076-1-luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
 <20230827211408.689076-4-luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
 <0d7697fd-11b3-1d4a-78da-7e5eb293d186@quicinc.com>
 <072b3df6-09fb-98a8-2b58-41dfcabd98c0@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <072b3df6-09fb-98a8-2b58-41dfcabd98c0@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:53:08PM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 8/27/23 23:26, Trilok Soni wrote:
> > On 8/27/2023 2:14 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> > > +config QCOM_QSEECOM_UEFISECAPP
> > > +	bool "Qualcomm SEE UEFI Secure App client driver"
> > 
> > Why not "tristate"? This driver can be a loadable module, right?
> 
> As I understand, modular efivars have still not been fully sorted out in
> the kernel. For example, userspace could try and mount efivarfs before
> the module has been loaded and by that erroneously determine that the
> system doesn't support efivars. So requiring it to be built in for now
> is more of a workaround (which has been suggested by Johan Hovold).
> 
> There is no technical limitation in this part of the code itself, so
> enabling it (and QCOM_QSEECOM for that matter) to be built as module
> should be fairly straightforward once that's been sorted out.
> 

Afaict without resolving the efivars issue this is boolean in practice
anyways. As such, I intend to pick this for v6.7, and we can transition
to modular support incrementally from here.

Many thanks for sticking to the effort, Maximilian.

Regards,
Bjorn