On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:56 AM Abdellatif El Khlifi abdellatif.elkhlifi@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:32:28AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 08:13, Rob Herring robh@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:04 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 11:11, Rob Herring robh@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:41 AM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Abdellatif,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 09:32, Abdellatif El Khlifi abdellatif.elkhlifi@arm.com wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:59:32AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 01:46:54PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:49 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the problem comes down to, can we have one discovery method that > > > > everyone shares, or do we have to let everyone invent a new discovery > > > > method every time? > > > > > > > > > No one needs to invent any discovery method every time if the firmware > > > specification > > > provides one and as Rob mentioned many times in the thread, all new firmware > > > specification must provide one and we are trying to make sure that is > > > the case with all new > > > specs from Arm. > > > > > > > > > > FF-A, Op-tee, U-Boot, coreboot, barebox (and > > > > everyone else I'm unintentionally forgetting) could just discover these > > > > things via device tree. > > > > > > > > > I leave that to the individual projects to decide and agree but > > > fundamentally if > > > the specification provides a way to discover, not sure why we are even > > > discussing > > > an alternative method here. > > > > > > > > > > Or, we could all write our own code to perform > > > > the discovery. > > > > > > > > > For what reason ? I can understand if there is no discovery mechanism but > > > that's not the > > > case in $subject. > > > > > > > > > > And when RISC-V comes along with similar functionality, > > > > we could probe their device tree and see they've implemented the same > > > > concept, but a little differently, but still have the discovery portion > > > > be in the device tree. To which it sounds like your answer is "not in > > > > the device tree". > > > > > > > > > > I see U-boot seem to have made a decision to create DT node for each and > > > everything > > > that needs to be added to DM which seems bit unfortunate but I don't > > > understand the > > > history/motive/background for it but I respect the decision if it is > > > already made. > > > > > > These firmware interfaces are standard on all Arm platforms and can be > > > discovered > > > based on PSCI/SMCCC. Not using the same and use DT node needs unnecessary > > > addition of DT nodes for all the f/w i/f on all the platforms that need the > > > support when > > > one can be just discovered. > > > > > > Sorry for the sudden appearance on this thread, I was avoiding getting into > > > this but thought > > > I will at least express my opinion and also the way the firmware > > > specifications from Arm is > > > expected to be evolved from now on. With that I will leave it to you and > > > other U-boot > > > maintainers and the community in general to decide the right course in this > > > case. > > > > To be clear, if the position is that "this is what everyone else will > > use, really" then yes, we'll follow this in U-Boot. > > Hi Simon, Tom, > > The FF-A transport is a SW bus and is not associated to any HW peripheral or > undiscoverable base address. > > There is only 1 way of discovering the FF-A bus and it's through the FF-A SW > interfaces. The FF-A spec [1] describes this in details.
Can you add a DT node for the 'FF-A SW interfaces' and attach some sort of top-level driver to that? Perhaps simple-bus, or your own thing? You don't need to add compatible strings for subnodes (devices that are discoverable within that).
We already have that. It's just called 'arm,psci'. FF-A is not the top-level thing. SMCCC is. That's unfortunately called PSCI in DT because SMCCC grew out of PSCI. Evolution is ugly...
It's like this:
SMCCC +--PSCI +--TRNG +--FF-A +--SCMI (sometimes) +--OP-TEE +--...Whatever Arm comes up with next...
OK well that sounds OK.
So what is the problem here? We have an SMCCC top-level thing in the DT and everything else can be bound from that, right? Are people on this thread not aware of this...or am I still missing something?
Can you point to the SMCCC driver in U-Boot? Is this bind_smccc_features(), i.w.c. it looks like it does what I want...why does this thread exist?
I imagine the u-boot structure for all this has evolved like the bindings where each feature was developed independently. From my brief look at it, initialization of all the above features would need to be reworked to work as described.
OK, then perhaps this is making more sense to me now.
Abdellatif, can you please look at the above? We should have one top-level node in the DT and have that driver bind the child devices.
Regards, Simon
Hi Simon, Rob,
I'd like to suggest the creation of a root node called arm_smccc as shown below.
This node is the parent of all nodes using SMC calls like FF-A, PSCI, optee, ...
The first child to be integrated in the arm_smccc root node is FF-A. Hopefully, in the future the other features such as PSCI could be integrated under arm_smccc as well.
So now instead of 1 binding being added, you are proposing 2 new bindings ("arm,smccc-1.2" and "arm,ffa")?
Not only that, we'd have to support both the old way for all the existing platforms and the new way.
Th root node looks like this:
firmware { arm_smccc { compatible = "arm,smccc-1.2";
Stop here. That's all that needs to be in the DT. The rest is discoverable. If we could redesign everything, then this is what we would have. A node saying we have SMCCC. But we can't just redesign everything. However, we already have such a node with the PSCI node because PSCI implies SMCCC.
What u-boot needs is a driver for "arm,smccc-1.2" that then instantiates FFA, PSCI, TRNG, etc. without DT. Except that it would match on "arm,psci" instead of "arm,smccc-1.2".
Rob