[GIT PULL] firmware: arm_ffa: Initial support for v5.14

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 04:34:30PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Olof,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 08:21:49AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 06:08:56PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > Hi Olof,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:58:38AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > > Hi ARM SoC Team,
> > > >
> > > > Please pull !
> > > >
> > > > This is a new driver pull request. One of the arm64 patch is being
> > > > pulled from a stable arm64 branch for-next/ffa as the other patches
> > > > are dependent of the same.
> > > >
> > > > Background
> > > > ----------
> > > > This has been on the list for almost a year now with changing requirements.
> > > > Initially Arm KVM wanted to use this via userspace interface in VMM to
> > > > communicate with VMs. But it was later dropped in favour of arch-agnostic
> > > > interface[1].
> > > >
> > > > Also there was some discussion on the dt-bindings which was dropped
> > > > completely. Though we need to workaround the lack of full discoveribility
> > > > in v1.0 spec, it is now being fixed for the next version of the spec.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I see that you have pulled quite a lot of drivers and other SoC code
> > > including my scmi and juno ones that were sent more recently than this
> > > one. Just thought of checking if this is still in queue ? Sorry for the
> > > nag but this has been on a list almost a year. We missed v5.13 due to
> > > DT binding controveries(for good reasons) and we really don't want to
> > > miss v5.14
> >
> > I held off because I wanted to spend a few cycles on looking into it before
> > blindly merging it.
> >
> 
> Sure, just wanted to make sure it was in your list.

Yeah, thanks for the ping. Whenever we miss something we almost always say:
"But you didn't ping us?!". You did, and it'd be awfully bad signaling if we
somehow got upset by it if we want people to do it more often.

> > Are there any implemented users of this (on either side) today? We normally
> > don't merge a framework in the kernel without having at least one user of it
> > also available.
> >
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Yes, OPTEE patches are on the list[1]. Just to avoid complexity in merging
> Jens(OPTEE maintainer) held it off for next cycle allowing more time. But we
> have been testing all the versions of this driver posted on the list with
> OPTEE. There are other users too but they need userspace interface which
> is still work in progress.

Ok, thanks for that! Ideally, having that in the tag, i.e. also in cover letter
for patch set would have avoided this round trip next time. But thanks for that
detail.

I'll queue this up shortly.


-Olof