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 620E7262FFC; Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:25:32 +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=1767050732; cv=none; b=XFnsHXffH3MNINEMNc2RAq2S3rd/m2RgJhyyi7XvzOZEFDJojrtyraRhrDho2DtU5kLpN3S2hHwjvME5P/3XEdZj46RXmAY+FHhvZTnySNMRr1uexgTyyF81VUj/+nZkneu7w58RH2E8nrcuEDqciKusSfpJuB4H21up749JLCA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767050732; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gBic61XhRnhOC+5nNfIY22uN2UTZjrJ0gw/UGoHisUw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nCvE1Ao+i/xV1vG9NTtpS7nuc+a8nNfXOhLmCvVTorvDDsTr0FYEQd4mt2254BU4RHQAniq1R/Bu04kKEji1fvxkOrnwiOAtM7HOUuj8zepvQwWrREoFxPUo0jyn7W4wfHd6To4Du9M9Bof5f6hfSeAvhb3ZazBPxwPwF6ZMvgM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=aY9VGVHh; 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="aY9VGVHh" 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-remoteproc@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: <20251217153917.3998544-2-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> 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