From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 750E112836C; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706635319; cv=none; b=RHBbozkPZThP2GroBXYfvPNg5cRW64Z+EZlD6RuxJphMEj6o/3QLQdyFSVu8o6b+ZRovrIbB63alc9bc1ORb++0w10wo/pO+Ggx/J5vjbzIHpwMUPvEO0ElIgPExMxsOBufsi4RcyLMwk2ZvT/LTZry+OtJjKz05fO7Pmbr3Mq8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706635319; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4wWtwu39k0xPKfG1c0t6Pd+ipT50TOdvHg/dYeAN4AY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YwwzMr8M/5CyCABAldMX1xclvLtDQfNu6MkGEhs9QGHSMQaLRQV2EDMKl5ZdMxUfuivQIRISYrYNlU/bnOp/06SIumjCcwm8nR2YXUboBMq1sIrVtc5gGJtzqNrzIr4WAIXuYK1GFSEHUdmqRHMa2UOVhQ4z5Vc6mjjBXOeELzk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kmWXiDzF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kmWXiDzF" 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <75429209-8f30-4880-8f92-ecb3cf90ae33@linaro.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