From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add basic SecureOS support Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:35:57 -0600 Message-ID: <51B6006D.7010409@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1370503687-17767-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <51B0BC80.9040007@wwwdotorg.org> <51B20B46.4030501@wwwdotorg.org> <20130610091415.GS18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130610091415.GS18614-l+eeeJia6m9vn6HldHNs0ANdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Alexandre Courbot , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , Chris Johnson , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Varun Wadekar , Karan Jhavar , Matthew Longnecker , Alexandre Courbot , Joseph Lo , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/10/2013 03:14 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:11:15PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> I think we need to separate the concept of support for *a* secure >>>>> monitor, from support for a *particular* secure monitor. >>>> >>>> Agreed. In this case, can we assume that support for a specific secure >>>> monitor is not arch-specific, and that this patch should be moved >>>> outside of arch-tegra and down to arch/arm? In other words, the ABI of >>>> a particular secure monitor should be the same no matter the chip, >>>> shouldn't it? >>> >>> I would like to believe that the Trusted Foundations monitor had the >>> same ABI irrespective of which Soc it was running on. However, I have >>> absolutely no idea at all if that's true. Even if there's some common >>> subset of the ABI that is identical across all SoCs, I wouldn't be too >>> surprised if there were custom extensions for each different SoC, or >>> just perhaps even each product. >>> >>> Can you research this and find out the answer? >> >> Will do. Information about TF is scarce unfortunately. > > The answer is... there isn't a common ABI. That is something I pressed > ARM Ltd for when this stuff first appeared and they were adamant that > they were not going to specify any kind of ABI for this interface. Right, there certainly isn't a common ABI across all secure monitors, but in this case I was wondering something more specific: whether for this specific implementation/provider of a secure monitor, if they had a consistent ABI across all SoCs (or even boards) that they implemented it on.