>>> I'd be OK with merging this, send a request and tag. Would that let >>> the DRM folks make progress too? >> >> Will do, I don’t think it will address the DRM folks needs as they need >> access to make firmware calls from the DRM driver. >> >>> If you need a common place for this, drivers/firmware seems like a >>> better home than drivers/soc. >> >> Agreed, what’s you take than on moving to use firmware_ops as defined in >> arch/arm and extended it or just leaving this as a qcom specific firmware >> interface? > > Are there any other SoCs out there with similar requirements on > firmware interfaces? I think most of them so far have been fairly > simple compared to the complexity of the qualcomm firmware. > > Would it make sense to use firmware_ops for the common pieces and have > direct smc calls for the rest? I'm not sure that would buy us all that > much. Hm. > > Well, at least it's an internal implementation detail. If we move it > now and find a better way to do it down the road it can be refactored.
So I’ve been looking at the ARM firmware_ops and I’m not sure it makes much sense to try and contort either the QCOM SCM interface to match or the other way around. The firmware_ops don’t really match what the qcom scm interface exposes and trying to make it would just seem to make the firmware_ops to QCOM specific to be of any value. I’ll look at cleaning up the SCM code and moving it to drivers/firmware instead of drivers/soc/qcom if that is more desirable. - k -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
