lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+: Introduce check for OP-TEE in omap_secure_init()
* Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> [191231 14:16]:
> On 12/31/19 1:32 AM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> > This doesn't guarantee that optee driver is probed successfully or firmware
> > installed correctly. Isn't there a better way to detect? Doesn't tee core layer
> > exposes anything?
>
> We don't actually need the kernel-side OP-TEE driver at all here, we are
> making raw SMCCC calls which get handled by OP-TEE using platform
> specific code then emulates the function previously handled by ROM[0]
> and execution is returned. No driver involved for these types of calls.
>
> U-Boot will not add this node to the DT unless OP-TEE is installed
> correctly, but you are right that is no perfect guarantee. OP-TEE's
> kernel driver does do a handshake to verify it is working but this is
> not exposed outside of that driver and happens *way* too late for our
> uses here. Plus as above, we don't need the OP-TEE driver at all and we
> should boot the same without it even enabled.
>
> So my opinion is that if DT says OP-TEE is installed, but it is not,
> then that is a misconfiguration and we usually just have to trust DT for
> most things. If DT is wrong here then the only thing that happens is
> this call safely fails, a message is printed informing the user of the
> problem, and kernel keeps booting (although probably not stable given we
> need these calls for important system configuration).

OK, please add comments to omap_optee_init_check(), it's not obvious
to anybody not dealing with optee directly.

Regards,

Tony

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-02 18:14    [W:0.063 / U:3.848 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site