Conversation
|
FYI @bertrand-marquis & @pergar01. |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
Looks good to me. |
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>
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
Hi @xypron and @bertrand-marquis, |
source/chapter3-secureworld.rst
Outdated
| 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]_ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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>
|
Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org |
|
Approved for merge during the call of Sep 10. |
|
This is pushed now. |
4 participants
Add AArch64 requirements when PFDI is implemented.