From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8877C46CD2 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:22:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=nZ1jB3AS+Vv2T7dQQ9ngOMEAlAMRwxAiL6efI3YQnEM=; b=oxCS4ufjRThcjE DHwiKqvn8yatDW5UprxcXS22IyDd++EqUnbN/VK/JMFmSyR2oB+heL4pEeFyOZvjicqw0ogNjc+Lh D1GVujX57QmgPy3SuklfK92n6tDS9MFBeSf8+iyLHCW6+BtHwZfo6WbpdZ316CP0a0pCf3w8gxKV7 NIk42WSrm3zXOf0ykkcT57G5eirnvov6cQFTlDrPDdu89Xy9qdwH/bXhoGK6gxZWIM1RK9MXbfBjT QcvFNestuTsJRxXn812Db/POyBAzc23fszcz4NCq/8mhfOzYSY8N1Gzc9LT61I5LpXtEpeZHMkOcU RX4lxPLKWjDONNULcSvQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rUroE-0000000HY01-23tI; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:22:06 +0000 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org ([145.40.73.55]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rUroB-0000000HXyx-1aZH for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:22:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B152FCE1B0E; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:22:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB412C433F1; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:21:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1706635318; bh=4wWtwu39k0xPKfG1c0t6Pd+ipT50TOdvHg/dYeAN4AY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kmWXiDzFUZWMZzmBpA4YYhgxS/sibS2eQcWpJvG1LA1+FZUYuc4kD2PbTzNoe036L wYJKCwdrnHW7bBjNmXHyy8rgOVYVsejkz3nh71I0n3LOa/8TvyUVadKn8sCQ0gSJ/C aAvDPnVAQKBuUw0wGxr97lIUE4fyGPbIWebRkfIiqV6jtg3Wsbn9wcJH4POQzdOiEq woKbFV9NOfEOOFaAzQfCzXP/UzV33va2G+x2r0t1Q4XFJu1SYiUPYxLMZM7Qnh9ZyM QRZw0o3pTGGHBr/CrZGen3PvVQRFXtsel6if2VsexK0EHc9ypSF3Qvz44AgM3qYOhc 9FELK1rhUbM1Q== Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:21:56 -0600 From: Rob Herring To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Arnaud Pouliquen , Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , Jens Wiklander , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , 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 v2 2/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add compatibility for TEE support Message-ID: <20240130172156.GA2008728-robh@kernel.org> References: <20240118100433.3984196-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <20240118100433.3984196-3-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <75429209-8f30-4880-8f92-ecb3cf90ae33@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <75429209-8f30-4880-8f92-ecb3cf90ae33@linaro.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240130_092203_794294_37E4BBA2 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 27.33 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 12:03:25PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 18/01/2024 11:04, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: > > The "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee" compatible is utilized in a system configuration > > where the Cortex-M4 firmware is loaded by the Trusted execution Environment > > (TEE). > > For instance, this compatible is used in both the Linux and OP-TEE > > device-tree: > > - In OP-TEE, a node is defined in the device tree with the > > st,stm32mp1-m4-tee to support signed remoteproc firmware. > > Based on DT properties, OP-TEE authenticates, loads, starts, and stops > > the firmware. > > - On Linux, when the compatibility is set, the Cortex-M resets should not > > be declared in the device tree. > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen > > --- > > V1 to V2 updates > > - update "st,stm32mp1-m4" compatible description to generalize > > - remove the 'reset-names' requirement in one conditional branch, as the > > property is already part of the condition test. > > --- > > .../bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml | 52 +++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml > > index 370af61d8f28..6af821b15736 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml > > @@ -16,7 +16,12 @@ maintainers: > > > > properties: > > compatible: > > - const: st,stm32mp1-m4 > > + enum: > > + - st,stm32mp1-m4 > > + - st,stm32mp1-m4-tee > > The patch looks good to me, but I wonder about this choice of two > compatibles. > > Basically this is the same hardware with the same interface, but two > compatibles to differentiate a bit different firmware setup. We have > already such cases for Qualcomm [1] [2] and new ones will be coming. [3] > > I wonder whether this should be rather the same compatible with > additional property, e.g. "st,tee-control" or "remote-control". > > [1] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7.1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml#L54 > > [2] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7.1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/qcom,ipa.yaml#L129 > (that's a bit different) > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20240124103623.GJ4906@thinkpad/ > > @Rob, > Any general guidance for this and Qualcomm? I think we have cases using compatible already as well. Either way is fine with me. Rob _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel