Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:07:52 +0900 | From | Alex Courbot <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] ARM: add basic support for Trusted Foundations |
| |
On 10/29/2013 05:12 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:31:36PM +0000, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On Monday 28 of October 2013 14:56:49 Olof Johansson wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:57:04AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>>> On Oct 28, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>>>>> Trusted Foundations is a TrustZone-based secure monitor for ARM that >>>>>> can be invoked using the same SMC-based API on all supported >>>>>> platforms. This patch adds initial basic support for Trusted >>>>>> Foundations using the ARM firmware API. Current features are limited >>>>>> to the ability to boot secondary processors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: The API followed by Trusted Foundations does *not* follow the >>>>>> SMC >>>>>> calling conventions. It has nothing to do with PSCI neither and is >>>>>> only >>>>>> relevant to devices that use Trusted Foundations (like most >>>>>> Tegra-based >>>>>> retail devices). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> .../arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundations.txt | 20 ++++++ >>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt | 1 + >>>>>> arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 + >>>>>> arch/arm/Makefile | 1 + >>>>>> arch/arm/firmware/Kconfig | 28 ++++++++ >>>>>> arch/arm/firmware/Makefile | 1 + >>>>>> arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c | 79 >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/include/asm/trusted_foundations.h >>>>>> | 67 ++++++++++++++++++ 8 files changed, 199 insertions(+) >>>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundatio >>>>>> ns.txt create mode 100644 arch/arm/firmware/Kconfig >>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/firmware/Makefile >>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c >>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/trusted_foundations.h >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git >>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundat >>>>>> ions.txt >>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundat >>>>>> ions.txt new file mode 100644 >>>>>> index 0000000..2ec75c9 >>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>> +++ >>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundat >>>>>> ions.txt @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ >>>>>> +Trusted Foundations >>>>>> +------------------- >>>>>> + >>>>>> +Boards that use the Trusted Foundations secure monitor can signal >>>>>> its >>>>>> +presence by declaring a node compatible with >>>>>> "tl,trusted-foundations" >>>>>> +under the /firmware/ node >>>>>> + >>>>>> +Required properties: >>>>>> +- compatible : "tl,trusted-foundations" >>>>>> +- version-major : major version number of Trusted Foundations >>>>>> firmware >>>>>> +- version-minor: minor version number of Trusted Foundations >>>>>> firmware >>>>> >>>>> vendor prefix version. >>>> >>>> Are you saying he should use tl,version-major tl,version-minor? For >>>> bindings that are already vendor-specific we haven't (on ARM) asked for >>>> vendor prefix on properties. It doesn't mean that we should keep going >>>> down that route though, so I'm just asking for clarification for my own >>>> edification. :) >>> >>> This is a good question. We should decide what the right thing (TM) is and >>> write it down. I, on the contrary, was convinced that it's the way Kumar >>> says. >> >> The impression I got was that properties should be prefixed when they're >> extremely vendor-specific and could clash with a more generic property. I'm not >> sure that firmware will ever have a generic binding given the variation even in >> the set of implemented functionality. >> >> I would imagine that there are many ways different firmwares might be >> versioned, and I can't see version-major or version-minor clashing with a >> generic property we might add later. However prefixing would not be harmful, so >> I'm not opposed to it if others want that. >> >> Another option would be to support a fallback compatible list (e.g. >> "tl,trusted-foundations-${MAJOR}-${MINOR}", "tl,trusted-foundations"), and get >> versioning information from there. Given that could be painful to handle I >> don't want to force it if not required. >> >> Thanks, >> Mark. > > I'm of the opinion that making all vendor specific properties vendor prefixed is the easiest rule of thumb and leaves no gray area to have to argue about.
All good points, I will vendor-prefix these properties.
Thanks, Alex.
| |