From: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@oss.qualcomm.com>
To restrict Gunyah watchdog initialization to Qualcomm platforms running
under the Gunyah Hypervisor, register the watchdog device in the QCOM
SCM driver.
When Gunyah is not present or Gunyah emulates MMIO-based watchdog, we
expect Qualcomm watchdog or ARM SBSA watchdog device to be present in
the devicetree. First, we make sure we're running under the Gunyah
Hypervisor. Then we move to check if any of the above mentioned
watchdog device nodes are present, if not then we proceed to register
the SMC-based Gunyah watchdog device.
Signed-off-by: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
index e777b7cb9b12..71b79c0229da 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
@@ -2182,6 +2182,54 @@ int qcom_scm_qtee_callback_response(phys_addr_t buf, size_t buf_size,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_scm_qtee_callback_response);
+static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
+{
+ struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
+
+ platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
+}
+
+static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
+{
+ struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
+ struct device_node *np;
+ bool of_wdt_available;
+ int i;
+ uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
+ 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
+ static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
+ "qcom,kpss-wdt",
+ "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
+ };
+
+ /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
+ if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * Gunyah emulates either of Qualcomm watchdog or ARM SBSA watchdog on
+ * newer platforms. Bail out if we find them in the devicetree.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(of_wdt_compatible); i++) {
+ np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, of_wdt_compatible[i]);
+ of_wdt_available = of_device_is_available(np);
+ of_node_put(np);
+ if (of_wdt_available)
+ return;
+ }
+
+ gunyah_wdt_dev = platform_device_register_simple("gunyah-wdt", -1,
+ NULL, 0);
+ if (IS_ERR(gunyah_wdt_dev)) {
+ dev_err(scm->dev, "Failed to register Gunyah watchdog device: %ld\n",
+ PTR_ERR(gunyah_wdt_dev));
+ return;
+ }
+
+ devm_add_action_or_reset(scm->dev, qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free,
+ gunyah_wdt_dev);
+}
+
static void qcom_scm_qtee_free(void *data)
{
struct platform_device *qtee_dev = data;
@@ -2448,6 +2496,9 @@ static int qcom_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
/* Initialize the QTEE object interface. */
qcom_scm_qtee_init(scm);
+ /* Initialize the Gunyah watchdog platform device. */
+ qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(scm);
+
return 0;
}
--
2.43.0On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 05:53:08PM +0000, Hrishabh Rajput via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@oss.qualcomm.com>
>
> To restrict Gunyah watchdog initialization to Qualcomm platforms running
> under the Gunyah Hypervisor, register the watchdog device in the QCOM
> SCM driver.
>
> When Gunyah is not present or Gunyah emulates MMIO-based watchdog, we
> expect Qualcomm watchdog or ARM SBSA watchdog device to be present in
> the devicetree. First, we make sure we're running under the Gunyah
> Hypervisor. Then we move to check if any of the above mentioned
> watchdog device nodes are present, if not then we proceed to register
> the SMC-based Gunyah watchdog device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> index e777b7cb9b12..71b79c0229da 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> @@ -2182,6 +2182,54 @@ int qcom_scm_qtee_callback_response(phys_addr_t buf, size_t buf_size,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_scm_qtee_callback_response);
>
> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> +{
> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> +
> + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> +}
> +
> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> +{
> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> + struct device_node *np;
> + bool of_wdt_available;
> + int i;
> + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
static const?
> + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> + };
> +
> + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> + return;
This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> +
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > +
> > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > +{
> > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > + struct device_node *np;
> > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > + int i;
> > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
>
> static const?
>
> > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > + };
> > +
> > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > + return;
>
> This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
>
Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
Thanks,
Pavan
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > +
> > > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > +{
> > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > + struct device_node *np;
> > > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > > + int i;
> > > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> >
> > static const?
> >
> > > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > + return;
> >
> > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> >
>
> Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
>
Dmitry / Bjorn,
We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
- QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
- Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
- Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
you think otherwise.
Thanks,
Pavan
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > > +
> > > > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > > + struct device_node *np;
> > > > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> > >
> > > static const?
> > >
> > > > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> > >
> >
> > Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> >
>
> Dmitry / Bjorn,
>
> We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
>
> - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
> QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
What does that imply? What is the actual impact? (Do I need to go read
the dependency tree myself?)
>
> - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
>
> - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
> for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
>
> We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
> you think otherwise.
What is this trend driven by? Is it coin toss or is there a reason? My
gut feeling is trending towards one of the latter two options...
But you're effectively asking us to go research these three options,
determine the pros/cons and then tell you what we think, at which point I
presume you will tell us what you think about each option.
It would be better if you made a suggestion and told us why you think
this is the best choice - then we can either agree with your reasoning,
or choose to ask more questions or do some research.
Regards,
Bjorn
> Thanks,
> Pavan
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:38:27AM -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > > > + struct device_node *np;
> > > > > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > > > > + int i;
> > > > > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> > > >
> > > > static const?
> > > >
> > > > > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > > > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > > > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > > > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > > > + };
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > > > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > > > + return;
> > > >
> > > > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> > > >
> > >
> > > Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> > >
> >
> > Dmitry / Bjorn,
> >
> > We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
> >
> > - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
> > QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
>
> What does that imply? What is the actual impact? (Do I need to go read
> the dependency tree myself?)
Actually, I misunderstood how QCOM_SCM driver is enabled. It is being
selected by other drivers which needs functionality provided by QCOM_SCM
driver. So adding HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY dependency does not make much
sense. Sorry, I should have done my homework properly. I was carried
away with `select` vs `depends on` approach.
>
> >
> > - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
> >
> > - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
> > for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
> >
> > We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
> > you think otherwise.
>
> What is this trend driven by? Is it coin toss or is there a reason? My
> gut feeling is trending towards one of the latter two options...
Thanks, we are going with #ifdefry around the new code that is added by
this patch.
>
> But you're effectively asking us to go research these three options,
> determine the pros/cons and then tell you what we think, at which point I
> presume you will tell us what you think about each option.
>
> It would be better if you made a suggestion and told us why you think
> this is the best choice - then we can either agree with your reasoning,
> or choose to ask more questions or do some research.
>
Understood. I will keep this in mind while presenting choices from now
onwards.
Thanks,
Pavan
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:31:10PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:38:27AM -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > > > > + struct device_node *np;
> > > > > > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> > > > >
> > > > > static const?
> > > > >
> > > > > > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > > > > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > > > > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > > > > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > > > > + };
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > > > > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > > > > + return;
> > > > >
> > > > > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dmitry / Bjorn,
> > >
> > > We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
> > >
> > > - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
> > > QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
> >
> > What does that imply? What is the actual impact? (Do I need to go read
> > the dependency tree myself?)
>
> Actually, I misunderstood how QCOM_SCM driver is enabled. It is being
> selected by other drivers which needs functionality provided by QCOM_SCM
> driver. So adding HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY dependency does not make much
> sense. Sorry, I should have done my homework properly. I was carried
> away with `select` vs `depends on` approach.
>
> >
> > >
> > > - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
> > >
> > > - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
> > > for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
> > >
> > > We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
> > > you think otherwise.
> >
> > What is this trend driven by? Is it coin toss or is there a reason? My
> > gut feeling is trending towards one of the latter two options...
>
> Thanks, we are going with #ifdefry around the new code that is added by
> this patch.
It's preferred to use if(IS_ENABLED()) rather than #ifdef.
>
> >
> > But you're effectively asking us to go research these three options,
> > determine the pros/cons and then tell you what we think, at which point I
> > presume you will tell us what you think about each option.
> >
> > It would be better if you made a suggestion and told us why you think
> > this is the best choice - then we can either agree with your reasoning,
> > or choose to ask more questions or do some research.
> >
>
> Understood. I will keep this in mind while presenting choices from now
> onwards.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > > +
> > > > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > > + struct device_node *np;
> > > > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> > >
> > > static const?
> > >
> > > > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> > >
> >
> > Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> >
>
> Dmitry / Bjorn,
>
> We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
>
> - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
> QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
>
> - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
>
> - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
> for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
>
> We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
> you think otherwise.
The same as before: 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 11/11/2025 11:34, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
>>>>> + struct device_node *np;
>>>>> + bool of_wdt_available;
>>>>> + int i;
>>>>> + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
>>>>
>>>> static const?
>>>>
>>>>> + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
>>>>> + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
>>>>> + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
>>>>> + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
>>>>> + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
>>>>> + return;
>>>>
>>>> This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
>>>
>>
>> Dmitry / Bjorn,
>>
>> We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
>>
>> - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
>> QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
>>
>> - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
>>
>> - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
>> for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
>>
>> We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
>> you think otherwise.
>
> The same as before: 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'.
HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY has a dependency which is not always selected
(e.g. ARM32), thus selecting it might lead to warnings of unmet
dependencies. Whichever they choose here, they need to be sure to
actually compile test it, because existing patch lacks that and reports
are proving lack of building.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:41:51AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/11/2025 11:34, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> >>>>> + struct device_node *np;
> >>>>> + bool of_wdt_available;
> >>>>> + int i;
> >>>>> + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> >>>>
> >>>> static const?
> >>>>
> >>>>> + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> >>>>> + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> >>>>> + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> >>>>> + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> >>>>> + };
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> >>>>> + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> >>>>> + return;
> >>>>
> >>>> This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dmitry / Bjorn,
> >>
> >> We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
> >>
> >> - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
> >> QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
> >>
> >> - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
> >>
> >> - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
> >> for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
> >>
> >> We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
> >> you think otherwise.
> >
> > The same as before: 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'.
>
> HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY has a dependency which is not always selected
> (e.g. ARM32), thus selecting it might lead to warnings of unmet
> dependencies.
Then `if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY))` might be a good
option here (and depend on GICv3 selecting it).
> Whichever they choose here, they need to be sure to
> actually compile test it, because existing patch lacks that and reports
> are proving lack of building.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 11/11/2025 5:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:41:51AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/11/2025 11:34, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
>>>>>>> + struct device_node *np;
>>>>>>> + bool of_wdt_available;
>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>> + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
>>>>>> static const?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
>>>>>>> + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
>>>>>>> + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
>>>>>>> + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
>>>>>>> + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>> This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
>>>>>>
>>>>> Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
>>>>>
>>>> Dmitry / Bjorn,
>>>>
>>>> We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
>>>>
>>>> - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
>>>> QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
>>>>
>>>> - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
>>>>
>>>> - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
>>>> for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
>>>>
>>>> We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
>>>> you think otherwise.
>>> The same as before: 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'.
>> HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY has a dependency which is not always selected
>> (e.g. ARM32), thus selecting it might lead to warnings of unmet
>> dependencies.
> Then `if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY))` might be a good
> option here (and depend on GICv3 selecting it).
Thanks a lot Dmitry, wemade the change below and compile tested on
various architectures (ARM64, ARM32, x86, PowerPC, RISC-V and MIPS) and
it was success.
We will include it in our next patch version, if there are no further
concerns.
}; /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */ - if
(!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) + if
(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) || +
!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) return; /*
Thanks,
Hrishabh
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 07:30:59PM +0530, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2025 5:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:41:51AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 11/11/2025 11:34, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > > > > > > + struct device_node *np;
> > > > > > > > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > > > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > > > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> > > > > > > static const?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > > > > > > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > > > > > > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > > > > > > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > > > > > > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Dmitry / Bjorn,
> > > > >
> > > > > We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
> > > > >
> > > > > - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
> > > > > QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
> > > > >
> > > > > - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
> > > > > for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
> > > > >
> > > > > We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
> > > > > you think otherwise.
> > > > The same as before: 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'.
> > > HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY has a dependency which is not always selected
> > > (e.g. ARM32), thus selecting it might lead to warnings of unmet
> > > dependencies.
> > Then `if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY))` might be a good
> > option here (and depend on GICv3 selecting it).
>
>
> Thanks a lot Dmitry, wemade the change below and compile tested on various
> architectures (ARM64, ARM32, x86, PowerPC, RISC-V and MIPS) and it was
> success.
>
> We will include it in our next patch version, if there are no further
> concerns.
>
> }; /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */ - if
> (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) + if
> (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) || +
> !arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) return; /*
Unreadable. Don't you read what you are sending?
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 11/11/2025 8:35 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 07:30:59PM +0530, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
>> On 11/11/2025 5:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:41:51AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2025 11:34, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
>>>>>>>>> + struct device_node *np;
>>>>>>>>> + bool of_wdt_available;
>>>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>>>> + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
>>>>>>>> static const?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
>>>>>>>>> + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
>>>>>>>>> + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
>>>>>>>>> + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
>>>>>>>>> + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>> This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dmitry / Bjorn,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
>>>>>> QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
>>>>>> for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
>>>>>> you think otherwise.
>>>>> The same as before: 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'.
>>>> HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY has a dependency which is not always selected
>>>> (e.g. ARM32), thus selecting it might lead to warnings of unmet
>>>> dependencies.
>>> Then `if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY))` might be a good
>>> option here (and depend on GICv3 selecting it).
>> Thanks a lot Dmitry, wemade the change below and compile tested on various
>> architectures (ARM64, ARM32, x86, PowerPC, RISC-V and MIPS) and it was
>> success.
>>
>> We will include it in our next patch version, if there are no further
>> concerns.
>>
>> }; /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */ - if
>> (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) + if
>> (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) || +
>> !arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) return; /*
> Unreadable. Don't you read what you are sending?
Sorry, my mail client messed up the formatting while sending. Here is
the proper version:
/* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
- if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) ||
+ !arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
return;
Thanks,
Hrishabh
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:07:26AM +0530, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2025 8:35 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 07:30:59PM +0530, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
> > > On 11/11/2025 5:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:41:51AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On 11/11/2025 11:34, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:51:43AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_free(void *data)
> > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev = data;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > + platform_device_unregister(gunyah_wdt_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +static void qcom_scm_gunyah_wdt_init(struct qcom_scm *scm)
> > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > + struct platform_device *gunyah_wdt_dev;
> > > > > > > > > > + struct device_node *np;
> > > > > > > > > > + bool of_wdt_available;
> > > > > > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > > > > > + uuid_t gunyah_uuid = UUID_INIT(0xc1d58fcd, 0xa453, 0x5fdb, 0x92, 0x65,
> > > > > > > > > static const?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > + 0xce, 0x36, 0x67, 0x3d, 0x5f, 0x14);
> > > > > > > > > > + static const char * const of_wdt_compatible[] = {
> > > > > > > > > > + "qcom,kpss-wdt",
> > > > > > > > > > + "arm,sbsa-gwdt",
> > > > > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > + /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> > > > > > > > > > + if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> > > > > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > > > This rquires 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Probably `depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY` is correct here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitry / Bjorn,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are debating on this internally on how to resolve this dependency
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - QCOM_SCM depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY which means restricting
> > > > > > > QCOM_SCM compilation than what it is today.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Adding #ifdefry around arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid usage in qcom scm driver
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Adding stub for `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid()` which is not done
> > > > > > > for any of the functions defined in drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are trending towards the first option above. Please let us know if
> > > > > > > you think otherwise.
> > > > > > The same as before: 'select HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY'.
> > > > > HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY has a dependency which is not always selected
> > > > > (e.g. ARM32), thus selecting it might lead to warnings of unmet
> > > > > dependencies.
> > > > Then `if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY))` might be a good
> > > > option here (and depend on GICv3 selecting it).
> > > Thanks a lot Dmitry, wemade the change below and compile tested on various
> > > architectures (ARM64, ARM32, x86, PowerPC, RISC-V and MIPS) and it was
> > > success.
> > >
> > > We will include it in our next patch version, if there are no further
> > > concerns.
> > >
> > > }; /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */ - if
> > > (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) + if
> > > (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) || +
> > > !arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid)) return; /*
> > Unreadable. Don't you read what you are sending?
>
> Sorry, my mail client messed up the formatting while sending. Here is the
> proper version:
>
> /* Bail out if we are not running under Gunyah */
> - if (!arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) ||
> + !arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid(&gunyah_uuid))
> return;
LGTM
>
> Thanks,
> Hrishabh
>
Hi Hrishabh, kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: [auto build test ERROR on 6146a0f1dfae5d37442a9ddcba012add260bceb0] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Hrishabh-Rajput-via-B4-Relay/firmware-qcom-scm-Register-gunyah-watchdog-device/20251108-015559 base: 6146a0f1dfae5d37442a9ddcba012add260bceb0 patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251107-gunyah_watchdog-v5-1-4c6e3fb6eb17%40oss.qualcomm.com patch subject: [PATCH v5 1/2] firmware: qcom: scm: Register gunyah watchdog device config: riscv-randconfig-r063-20251108 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251108/202511082023.F71T0M1w-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: riscv64-linux-gcc (GCC) 8.5.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251108/202511082023.F71T0M1w-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202511082023.F71T0M1w-lkp@intel.com/ All errors (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<): >> ERROR: modpost: "arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid" [drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom-scm.ko] undefined! -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
Hi Hrishabh, kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: [auto build test ERROR on 6146a0f1dfae5d37442a9ddcba012add260bceb0] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Hrishabh-Rajput-via-B4-Relay/firmware-qcom-scm-Register-gunyah-watchdog-device/20251108-015559 base: 6146a0f1dfae5d37442a9ddcba012add260bceb0 patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251107-gunyah_watchdog-v5-1-4c6e3fb6eb17%40oss.qualcomm.com patch subject: [PATCH v5 1/2] firmware: qcom: scm: Register gunyah watchdog device config: powerpc-randconfig-001-20251108 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251108/202511081706.0sVDjTBC-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: powerpc-linux-gcc (GCC) 8.5.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251108/202511081706.0sVDjTBC-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202511081706.0sVDjTBC-lkp@intel.com/ All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): powerpc-linux-ld: powerpc-linux-ld: DWARF error: could not find abbrev number 44 drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.o: in function `qcom_scm_probe': >> qcom_scm.c:(.text+0x349c): undefined reference to `arm_smccc_hypervisor_has_uuid' -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.