Copying response on mailing list.
Aug 4 2021
Mar 26 2021
Feb 21 2021
I think this is generally a good move. The transition period will be ugly and unavoidable but we should reap the benefits of it long term. I do agree with Varun's concern about using tags in the headers but it is a trade-off we will have to make for the benefits standard commits offers.
Varun, is the format <conventional commit tag>:<plat> or <submodule>:<short message> not sufficient? I dont think we want to pack too much into the header any way in terms of what the commit is doing.
Oct 9 2020
This is a great initiative. Support this completely, although the "Expectation from LTS codebase" section scares me :). Given the size of the community(that i'm aware of), the goals set out are great long term goals so may be it should be renamed as Long term expectations.
Apr 15 2020
I think this looks great.
May 21 2019
Thanks guys! The dmbish() is not a huge deal. Just get a little nervous when i see barriers and don't completely understand why it is there. :)
Thanks Paul, Soby.
spm_response_*() currently cannot invoked by any secure partition since the responses array is in EL3 space. Is this not the case ? or is it the expectation that the responses array will be mapped to secure EL0 some time in the future? I don't see how a secure partition can invoke spm_response_* other than through an SMC, in which case we are already in EL3 context and dont require the dmbish(), as Paul pointed. I understand your argument for sprt_queue_*, since they are invoked by EL3 and the secure partition.
May 13 2019
May 11 2019
Thanks for taking a look and providing confirmation! :)
May 8 2019
Thanks. Missed the lockless reader of the queue. Who is the lockless reader for spm_response_add() and spm_response_get()?