All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@kernel.org>,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: Add TEE remoteproc service binding
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:25:30 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251229232530.GA2753472-robh@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251217153917.3998544-2-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 04:39:12PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> Add a device tree binding for the TEE-based remote processor control
> service implemented as an OP-TEE Trusted Application identified by
> UUID 80a4c275-0a47-4905-8285-1486a9771a08.
> 
> The TEE service node is a child of the "linaro,optee-tz" firmware node and
> acts as a container for remoteproc devices that are controlled via TEE.

Is this generic for any remoteproc device or just ST's remoteproc. Looks 
like the latter to me.

> In addition, the "linaro,optee-tz" binding is updated to specify the
> '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' values used for child TEE service
> nodes.

I'm pretty sure I already rejected per service/app child nodes for 
OP-TEE when its binding was submitted. If we do need something in DT 
to define some resources, then can't we have some sort of 
standard/common communications channel? I don't care to see some sort of 
free-for-all where we have every vendor doing their own thing. OP-TEE 
needs to standarize this.

Rob


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rob Herring via OP-TEE <op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
To: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@kernel.org>,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: Add TEE remoteproc service binding
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:25:30 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251229232530.GA2753472-robh@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251217153917.3998544-2-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 04:39:12PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> Add a device tree binding for the TEE-based remote processor control
> service implemented as an OP-TEE Trusted Application identified by
> UUID 80a4c275-0a47-4905-8285-1486a9771a08.
> 
> The TEE service node is a child of the "linaro,optee-tz" firmware node and
> acts as a container for remoteproc devices that are controlled via TEE.

Is this generic for any remoteproc device or just ST's remoteproc. Looks 
like the latter to me.

> In addition, the "linaro,optee-tz" binding is updated to specify the
> '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' values used for child TEE service
> nodes.

I'm pretty sure I already rejected per service/app child nodes for 
OP-TEE when its binding was submitted. If we do need something in DT 
to define some resources, then can't we have some sort of 
standard/common communications channel? I don't care to see some sort of 
free-for-all where we have every vendor doing their own thing. OP-TEE 
needs to standarize this.

Rob

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-12-29 23:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-17 15:39 [PATCH v20 0/6] Introduction of a remoteproc tee to load signed firmware Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39 ` Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39 ` [PATCH v20 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: Add TEE remoteproc service binding Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39   ` Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-29  5:39   ` Sumit Garg
2025-12-29  5:39     ` Sumit Garg via OP-TEE
2025-12-29 23:25   ` Rob Herring [this message]
2025-12-29 23:25     ` Rob Herring via OP-TEE
2025-12-30 11:10     ` Sumit Garg
2025-12-30 11:10       ` Sumit Garg via OP-TEE
2026-01-02 22:17       ` Rob Herring
2026-01-02 22:17         ` Rob Herring via OP-TEE
2026-01-05  7:37         ` Sumit Garg
2026-01-05  7:37           ` Sumit Garg via OP-TEE
2026-01-13  9:20           ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2026-01-13  9:20             ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2026-02-03  7:42             ` [Linux-stm32] " Arnaud POULIQUEN
2026-02-03  7:42               ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2026-02-10  6:13               ` Sumit Garg
2026-02-10  6:13                 ` Sumit Garg via OP-TEE
2026-02-19  7:51                 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2026-02-19  7:51                   ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2025-12-17 15:39 ` [PATCH v20 2/6] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add STM32 TEE-controlled rproc binding Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39   ` Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39 ` [PATCH v20 3/6] remoteproc: core: Introduce rproc_pa_to_va helper Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39   ` Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39 ` [PATCH v20 4/6] remoteproc: Introduce optional release_fw operation Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39   ` Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39 ` [PATCH v20 5/6] remoteproc: Add TEE support Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39   ` Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-29  5:50   ` Sumit Garg
2025-12-29  5:50     ` Sumit Garg via OP-TEE
2026-01-05  8:33     ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2026-01-05  8:33       ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2025-12-17 15:39 ` [PATCH v20 6/6] remoteproc: stm32: Add TEE-controlled STM32 driver Arnaud Pouliquen
2025-12-17 15:39   ` Arnaud Pouliquen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20251229232530.GA2753472-robh@kernel.org \
    --to=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=andersson@kernel.org \
    --cc=arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com \
    --cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jens.wiklander@linaro.org \
    --cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
    --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
    --cc=op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org \
    --cc=sumit.garg@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.