Skip to content

Conversation

@vstehle
Copy link
Collaborator

@vstehle vstehle commented Aug 26, 2025

Add AArch64 requirements when PFDI is implemented.

@vstehle
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vstehle commented Aug 26, 2025

FYI @bertrand-marquis & @pergar01.

@vstehle

This comment was marked as outdated.

@bertrand-marquis
Copy link

Looks good to me.
We could say 1.0 or later though but as the PFDI spec does not enforce at this stage anything on compatibility between versions, this might be a bit to early.

Add a reference to the Platform Fault Detection Interface Specification
v1.0 ALP0, to prepare adding requirements around PFDI.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Stehlé <vincent.stehle@arm.com>
@vstehle

This comment was marked as outdated.

@vstehle
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vstehle commented Sep 1, 2025

Hi @xypron and @bertrand-marquis,
To follow up with the call of Aug 27, I tried to clarify which PFDI version is required.
To be honest I think it feels a bit "heavy weight" now but please let me know what you think.

On AArch64 platforms, when privileged or secure firmware implements the Platform
Fault Detection Interface (PFDI), it must be compliant with the requirements
defined in [PFDI]_ § 5 Compliance Requirements, and it must therefore respond
with version 1.0 to a `PFDI_VERSION` request. [#PFDINote]_

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you are repeating the spec content which is not very useful.
If you do link to PFDI 1.0 then saying that it must be compliant to it is enough, saying that 1.0 must be returned is repeating things

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @bertrand-marquis, thanks for the review.
It seems that I am in fact struggling to find the right wording.
What I am trying to obtain is a requirement on the firmware in term of minimal PFDI version implemented, and somewhat decoupled from the version of the PFDI specification we reference.
I will do another try.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@vstehle vstehle Sep 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is now reworded; let me please know how you like latest version.

On AArch64, when PFDI is implemented, require compatibility with PFDI v1.0.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Stehlé <vincent.stehle@arm.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@xypron xypron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link

@bertrand-marquis bertrand-marquis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

@apalos
Copy link

apalos commented Sep 10, 2025

Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org

@vstehle
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vstehle commented Sep 10, 2025

Approved for merge during the call of Sep 10.

@vstehle
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vstehle commented Sep 10, 2025

This is pushed now.

@vstehle vstehle closed this Sep 10, 2025
@vstehle vstehle deleted the pfdi branch September 10, 2025 14:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants