devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: Add OP-TEE transport for SCMI
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 10:51:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2b4442d9-fb10-36ee-585d-4103b76abbbb@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yh4304unzMxrQtoL@bogus>

Hello Sudeep,

On 01.03.22 16:12, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> Hi Ahmad,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 05:01:39PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Hello Etienne,
>>
>> On 28.10.21 16:00, Etienne Carriere wrote:
>>> Introduce compatible "linaro,scmi-optee" for SCMI transport channel
>>> based on an OP-TEE service invocation. The compatible mandates a
>>> channel ID defined with property "linaro,optee-channel-id".
>>
> 
> Not sure if Etienne's reply addressed your queries/concerns correctly.
> I thought I will add my view anyways.
> 
>> I just found this thread via the compatible in the STM32MP131 patch set:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220225133137.813919-1-gabriel.fernandez@foss.st.com/
>>
>> Linux doesn't care whether PSCI is provided by TF-A, OP-TEE or something
>> else, so there is just the arm,psci* compatible.
>>
> 
> Correct, the interface to the kernel is fixed and hence we must be able
> to manage with the standard and fixed sole set of bindings for the same.
> 
>> What's different about SCMI that this is not possible? Why couldn't the
>> existing binding and driver be used to communicate with OP-TEE as secure
>> monitor as well?
>>
> 
> However with SCMI, the spec concentrates and standardises all the aspects
> of the protocol used for the communication while it allows the transport
> used for such a communication to be implementation specific. It does
> address some standard transports like mailbox and PCC(ACPI). However,
> because of the flexibility and also depending on the hardware(or VM),
> different transports have been added to the list. SMC/HVC was the one,
> followed by the virtio and OPTEE. While I agree SMC/HVC and OPTEE seem
> to have lot of common and may have avoided separate bindings.
> 
> However the FIDs for SMC/HVC is vendor defined(the spec doesn't cover this
> and hence we utilised/exploited DT). Some vendors wanted interrupt support
> too which got added. OPTEE eliminates the need for FID and can also provide
> dynamic shared memory info. In short, it does differ in a way that the driver
> needs to understand the difference and act differently with each of the
> unique transports defined in the binding.
> 
> Hope that explains and addresses your concern.

Thanks for the elaborate answer. I see now why it's beneficial to have
an OP-TEE transport in general. I don't yet see the benefit to use it
in the STM32MP13x instead of SMCs like with STM32MP15x, but that a discussion
that I need to have in the aforementioned thread.

Thanks again!
Ahmad

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-08  9:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-28 14:00 [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: Add OP-TEE transport for SCMI Etienne Carriere
2021-10-29 10:21 ` Cristian Marussi
2021-11-02 13:21 ` Rob Herring
2021-11-25 12:25 ` Sudeep Holla
2021-11-25 12:41 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-02-28 16:01 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2022-03-01 14:05   ` Etienne Carriere
2022-03-01 14:11     ` Etienne Carriere
2022-03-08  9:53       ` Ahmad Fatoum
2022-03-01 15:12   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-03-08  9:51     ` Ahmad Fatoum [this message]
2022-03-08 10:18       ` Etienne Carriere
2022-03-16 11:18         ` Ahmad Fatoum

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=2b4442d9-fb10-36ee-585d-4103b76abbbb@pengutronix.de \
    --to=a.fatoum@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=etienne.carriere@linaro.org \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).