From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32F8C7EE39 for ; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233212AbjE3PMm (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2023 11:12:42 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48852 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233184AbjE3PMh (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2023 11:12:37 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210A5BE; Tue, 30 May 2023 08:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7F9462906; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C417FC433EF; Tue, 30 May 2023 15:12:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1685459555; bh=4kszkiKYQZZBlC9XFCYpDiNYoZ19gI+fLwDPLNndKzU=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=G0Jabv367okXjl+PR0dnMMOSyHI2z+LaykTYgyjXEbYiilKX+419JA7ARffaR9t3M 7cMpsTljIe7hGzmFHVwwoOjLJXsexJP6f7vKSKbG/cs5qyGAuOnkpI5SCdxvSnXk9x RYzAccWTtYwzSChWOR9HXWuRkXSs/38eAOUWd1ortKwryWdX1lWcZySyCoiZCKQdtE Sry3mSrPcmr/QRG4P/80TCJV+yW6/UTJTZTMrOtkDIBz+3EUrfFRbH3qXe6hou2apm 6BHkjatycqfh/rPqPiMeEZlVC8P4yJdZkrjmMLsqE0QzsAxExeBVBq8uZOJtVVBc8Q RpQxhWY9/9jrA== Message-ID: <7bdb0e44-eaf7-8085-2ea5-6bb06b01ef35@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 17:12:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: add compatibility for TEE support Content-Language: en-US To: Arnaud POULIQUEN , Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , Jens Wiklander Cc: 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 References: <20230523091350.292221-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <20230523091350.292221-4-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <1b4eba7e-2771-b0c8-ec23-2ed882374e5d@kernel.org> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 30/05/2023 17:00, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On 5/30/23 13:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 23/05/2023 11:13, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: >>> Rework compatibility description according to the support of >>> the authenticated firmware relying on OP-TEE authentication. >>> >>> The expected behavior is: >>> - with legacy compatible "st,stm32mp1-m4" the Linux kernel loads a >>> non-signed (ELF) firmware image, >>> - with compatible "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee" the Linux kernel load a signed >>> firmware image. In this case it calls TEE services to manage the firmware >>> loading and the remoteproc life-cycle. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen >>> --- >>> .../bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml | 33 +++++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people >> and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an older >> kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base >> your patches on recent Linux kernel. >> >> You missed at least DT list (maybe more), so this won't be tested. >> Please resend and include all necessary entries. >> >> Because of above and RFC, I assume there is no need for review. Just to >> be clear - that's a no. > > I did not add DT list and maintainers intentionally to avoid that you > review it. > As in a first step the associated OP-TEE pull request has to be reviewed. > And my plan was just to share the Linux implementation part until the > OP-TEE review cycle is finished. Sure, that's fine. I just don't know whether this is intentional or not. Many people skip list without such reason... > > Now regarding your mail (and very interesting feedback from Christoph Hellwig), > it was clearly not the good strategy. > So my apologize and next time whatever the objective of the series I will add > all peoples and lists in the loop. No worries! Thanks. Best regards, Krzysztof