From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A745606A319 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 16:26:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=lh9/8PSv; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=Flm2RA8p 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=tszaJSkqKNg/gD6sLTsFGX7FDn5XDitEJB0LfKIiqEg=; b=lh9/8PSvbteSWAJSRateOnAR4J OjvpUQ4JFaEWJ2vw5JFkjDng/R22MZiIHgUfzoQlJb0mrBycB7R6rE+Z3RruSDDfY12C91plcg0eu jpaX+wTu9cvUF9XvNJ2JnIRFC3FFRKu8Y4/6tyYnadqVRSrAyXeNgaFY1XP28GFwcAZNIR1Q1+AIK cu9+Nk7zja3MqCbk2cADth52So4U1YGyzwFkW1i8B0immVj3HeyS0cKS7NbIgMhiTHbmC4fQKHa2J VLM7QtgH9PWgIc0rF2XX/aX8mSwcZQpHnSyAcaoivlM1NjumMY2abRImVoegz1u9Ggsh69eJ44Bt1 2yIhitKQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xJB4H-00000009ykr-1mPZ; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 14:43:57 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xJB4F-00000009yk9-1Q5Y for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 14:43:56 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA5C2103; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 07:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e129823.arm.com (e129823.arm.com [10.2.213.3]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA1943F7D8; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1792507431; bh=ai4CxfHeJGRIqDqehiHXoYeWahRJlQGznfMvaCHUgDA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Flm2RA8pFqaKopRDXQeefae7/VimisOEoCJEbluSS7T0/WgQQcubrPzP/h3Yw9KEL 5q1JvjnnsBBEg6nJtiSbWugJId8gxKKYKAvHk7SYJ0oTT077wcke/d3oArCP654MkW Y6jPeUkZtobPsJudSRBSP9WRwTZy7YhpEw/5LZFY= Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:43:47 +0100 From: Yeoreum Yun To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Yeoreum Yun , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi , Catalin Marinas , Suzuki Poulose , Steven Price , Sami Mujawar , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Jiri Pirko , GONG Ruiqi Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] firmware: arm_firme: introduce FIRME support for host attestation Message-ID: References: <20261019-firme_interface-v1-0-27895c9cebaa@arm.com> <20261019233532.GL14213@ziepe.ca> <20261020124536.GM14213@ziepe.ca> <20261020135006.GO14213@ziepe.ca> <20261020143620.GP14213@ziepe.ca> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261020143620.GP14213@ziepe.ca> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261020_074355_417354_4717ECDB X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.82 ) X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 11:36:20AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 03:13:19PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > I wouldn't over complicated it. We already have smccc bus to do this, > > > we don't need layered stacks of busses here. Just change smccc bus to > > > be able to break up the multi-function SMC into several devices. > > > > I think my explaination was poor. Apologise... > > I'm not saying another bus making but just wrapper of smccc-bus APIs > > for firme specific and definietly, this would separate the > > multi-function SMC to defien each firme device (attestation and IDE). > > I don't see that kind of complexity is necessary.. I think it is > better to just have the root smcc bus spawn them > > > But, the *base* is common. and I couldn't find any proper location to > > deploy *common* code unless making arm_firme. > > What common code excatly? > > There shouldn't be? Getting an attestation is entirely orthogonal to > set link ide, for example? > > If you can identify what you think would ever be common that might > help clarifgy what to do.. I mean the BASE service of firme and typical example is shared buffer allocation. I agree IDE and attestaion service are orthogonal. but in case of base-service is not. it could be used for both service. Therefore, the firme_device wouldn't export all functions. In case of attestaion, it's enough to export base-service and attestation-service only. for the IDE, base-service and ide-service via union. Also We don't need to export base-service firme device as part of smccc device. It's enough to export two devices -- attestation and IDE via base_ops. But, to share the base-service opeerations to both devices, I think it would be better to have current arm_fimre layer. -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun