Quoting Stephan Gerhold (2021-04-08 00:19:44)
> Personally, I think it would be best to introduce a new, SMC64 only
> compatible (e.g. "qcom,scm-64" like I mentioned). Then you can skip the
> detection check for the boards that opt-in by adding the compatible.
> You can then use it on all newer
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:12:06PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Stephan Gerhold (2021-04-05 05:50:26)
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:21:58AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah right, the whole secure world running in 32-bit mode thing. Is
> > > msm8916 the only SoC that's using
Quoting Stephan Gerhold (2021-04-05 05:50:26)
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:21:58AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > Ah right, the whole secure world running in 32-bit mode thing. Is
> > msm8916 the only SoC that's using that? Or are there more? If only
> > msm8916 is affected then we could use
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:21:58AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Stephan Gerhold (2021-04-02 03:18:04)
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:58:48PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Maybe it would be better to catch that problem at the source and force
> > > arm64 calling
Quoting Stephan Gerhold (2021-04-02 03:18:04)
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:58:48PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Elliot Berman (2021-04-01 18:12:14)
> > >
> > > It might be a good idea to wrap these lines from qcom_scm_call with #if
> > > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM), and the corresponding
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:58:48PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Elliot Berman (2021-04-01 18:12:14)
> >
> > It might be a good idea to wrap these lines from qcom_scm_call with #if
> > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM), and the corresponding ones in qcom_scm_call_atomic:
> >
> >case
Quoting Elliot Berman (2021-04-01 18:12:14)
>
> It might be a good idea to wrap these lines from qcom_scm_call with #if
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM), and the corresponding ones in qcom_scm_call_atomic:
>
>case SMC_CONVENTION_LEGACY:
>return scm_legacy_call(dev, desc, res);
>
> If
On 3/23/2021 3:43 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
These scm calls are never used outside of legacy ARMv7 based platforms.
That's because PSCI, mandated on arm64, implements them for modern SoCs
via the PSCI spec. Let's move them to the legacy file and only compile
the legacy file into the kernel when
On Tue 23 Mar 17:43 CDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> These scm calls are never used outside of legacy ARMv7 based platforms.
> That's because PSCI, mandated on arm64, implements them for modern SoCs
> via the PSCI spec. Let's move them to the legacy file and only compile
> the legacy file into the
Quoting Stephen Boyd (2021-03-23 15:43:36)
> These scm calls are never used outside of legacy ARMv7 based platforms.
> That's because PSCI, mandated on arm64, implements them for modern SoCs
> via the PSCI spec. Let's move them to the legacy file and only compile
> the legacy file into the kernel
These scm calls are never used outside of legacy ARMv7 based platforms.
That's because PSCI, mandated on arm64, implements them for modern SoCs
via the PSCI spec. Let's move them to the legacy file and only compile
the legacy file into the kernel when CONFIG_ARM=y. Otherwise provide
stubs and fail
11 matches
Mail list logo
