[PATCH v10 3/4] tee: add OP-TEE driver

[jens.wiklander@linaro.org (Jens Wiklander)]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:49:57PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 06/01/2016 07:41 AM, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/tee/Makefile b/drivers/tee/Makefile
> > index 60d2dab..53f3c76 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tee/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/tee/Makefile
> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> >  obj-y += tee.o
> >  obj-y += tee_shm.o
> >  obj-y += tee_shm_pool.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_OPTEE) += optee/
> > diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/Kconfig b/drivers/tee/optee/Kconfig
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..a7a8b71
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/Kconfig
> > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> > +# OP-TEE Trusted Execution Environment Configuration
> > +config OPTEE
> > +	tristate "OP-TEE"
> > +	default n
> You should'nt need this.

I'll fix.

> 
> > +	depends on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
> 
> HAVE_ARM_SMCCC might depend on OPTEE secure support in place, right? I
> wonder if setsup any constraints for having a single zImage for OPTEE
> and non-OPTEE systems, I think not.. just wondering.

No, HAVE_ARM_SMCCC indicates just the presence of the arm_smccc_smc()
and arm_smccc_hvc() assembly functions. They are used by PSCI
independent of any TEE driver also.

> 
> Further, at this patch, smatch[1] complains:
> > +drivers/tee/optee/core.c:488 optee_probe() error: we previously assumed 'optee' could be null (see line 444) 

Sorry, I'll fix.

> 
> Checkpatch --strict complains:
> 
> > +CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> > +#878: FILE: drivers/tee/optee/core.c:333:
> > ++static struct tee_shm_pool *optee_config_shm_ioremap(struct device *dev,
> > ++                      optee_invoke_fn *invoke_fn,

Fixing this warning would make it less readable in my opinion, I'd
rather keep it as it is if you don't mind.

--
Thanks,
Jens