On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:30:27PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Ian Campbell ijc@hellion.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 09:28 +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
An Independent binary of a secured firmware makes more sense here. Also, if secured firmware is an independent binary then it need not be open source.
In which case it should/can not have anything to do with u-boot nor reuse any GPL'd u-boot code. The platform should supply the PSCI service itself if you want to do this.
I for one don't see this as an advantage.
Further, independent secure firmware can be also used by UEFI or other bootloaders.
For now we just need secure firmware loading service from u-boot, which is what this patchset does.
As I see it this patchset seeks to provide (and does a good job of it) you with PSCI services on platforms where you don't already have this, so you avoid having to implement yet another platform-specific SMP boot-up sequence in the kernel. This is not about providing any generic support for secure firmware.
Ideally, the platform would just ship with PSCI support and boot U-Boot in Hyp mode and everyone would be happy - whichever way vendors wish to do that is a completely different discussion than this patch set.
-Christoffer