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 8B56EE94102 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:25:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=8g/RL9DpYMne2dKMvOLjYxHkoQzMWz5i3+ifdqNtVHc=; b=iTHaEFfq8DmJIe9JH0I4MmXyO0 ueSsoaicXbbaUfjx/6pHlM/5qHD995rmL1RSQsBoB/kXf8aIkbrHk23VJqY4zkV8dCseBBE4Fhbwa 1ktA2mJbKZ0Si/whHE+fep7o+qsHHf6uxl2J9gVXNRZUj49iRUQ4Kr1U52Pq49+PzbSto2C5zKi/Q w402rEWfpem0iV7u6oQz+f2FJhn7VC0PsB9upUMwn1UIhftSwlmIKY8XufF9yCUBk6UOsBO9buJ7b FTImc2j8WrAWlC1XwxqjdkPfPHZtAlOSIqPekMm59qRNOdFTrlO0FsjK47jEgCxGDJE7QBPxgiYau TGFtjRbw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vaMcJ-000000048rA-2LPU; Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:25:35 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([172.234.252.31]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vaMcH-000000048qi-0Bwi for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:25:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E6A41697; Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:25:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B29ADC4CEF7; Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:25:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1767050731; bh=gBic61XhRnhOC+5nNfIY22uN2UTZjrJ0gw/UGoHisUw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aY9VGVHhUxXe6n10yUd3Ij+dXkWLdgZUtVl2t7HHs71hCLrC6/bpMaQhij2BtIOKX 8I9pes7DADMkBv7d6XdEZdDndszB06v88ncLpH1JwJCzwgDIQiwzlEfOBK3CVDDrJ7 g6AWyiwCStbcLLy2cD90Xpf77wPXM7KUN3Ziq614OHCEYrBfIKMXAvKJ9+da00RSoa Eh9kpcEtN61/0dJ7xPJwAQ65YtSVVmkC4MX/rIBohFQKt5HUe9P7lLhDT6eM6sme6f supwRhDPB4Lf3Vpl4g88tqGjg4ygBBa7DKyXeAli3xv7pGi007KfbwA4t9pS90CUcg ZBVU67HBEptBQ== Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:25:30 -0600 From: Rob Herring To: Arnaud Pouliquen Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , Jens Wiklander , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Sumit Garg , 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 Message-ID: <20251229232530.GA2753472-robh@kernel.org> References: <20251217153917.3998544-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <20251217153917.3998544-2-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251217153917.3998544-2-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20251229_152533_106872_052042A7 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 11.70 ) 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: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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