Re: [yocto] [RFC] Moving OP-TEE support from meta-arm to oe-core

Jose Quaresma
2026-03-31T13:50:12Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3016 bytes --]

Hi Thomas,

Could this proposal be sent to the OE-core mailing list? It's probably a
bit late for the next LTS, but it doesn't hurt to try.

Jose

Thomas Perrot via lists.yoctoproject.org <thomas.perrot=
bootlin.com@lists.yoctoproject.org> escreveu (terça, 3/02/2026 à(s) 16:29):

> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 2026-01-22 at 09:22 -0800, Khem Raj via lists.yoctoproject.org
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 9:05 AM Ross Burton via lists.yoctoproject.org
> <ross.burton=arm.com@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:
>
> On 22 Jan 2026, at 09:33, Thomas Perrot via lists.yoctoproject.org
> <thomas.perrot=bootlin.com@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, OP-TEE support is maintained in the meta-arm layer. However,
> > OP-TEE is now being adopted by non-ARM platforms as well, notably RISC-
> > V.
> >
> > Given this broader adoption, would it make sense to move the OP-TEE
> > recipes from meta-arm to oe-core?
> >
> > I'd like to hear the community's thoughts on this.
>
> Copying in the meta-arm list.
>
> My immediate thought on this is “would the riscv machines actually use the
> same recipes” or is there enough forking and vendor branches happening that
> whilst in theory everyone is using OP-TEE, they’re not all using the _same_
> optee.
>
> I’m not against moving genuinely shared recipes somewhere common, but I do
> think verifying this will actually happen is important.
>
> meta-arm tends to have several versions of optee at once for good reason…
> (currently one, but about to be two)
>
>
>
> I think its a good idea, but Ross's point is good too. If optee is forked
> for every architecture that can not be a good thing. However, if we can get
> qemuarm64 and qemuriscv64 based machines use an upstream version reliably,
> we might be able to even help upstream to keep things sane
> atleast for emulated machine architecture, similar to u-boot.
>
>
>
> I agree with this approach. It's worth noting that OP-TEE upstream already
> runs their test suite (xtest) on QEMU. This gives us confidence that the
> upstream version works reliably on emulated machines.
>
> Starting with qemuarm64 and qemuriscv64 support in oe-core using upstream
> OP-TEE would be a reasonable first step, leaving vendor-specific versions
> and hardware-specific configurations in their respective layers.
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas Perrot
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thomas Perrot, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and kernel engineeringhttps://bootlin.com
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#66212):
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/66212
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/117397331/5052612
> Group Owner: yocto+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [
> quaresma.jose@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>

--
Best regards,

José Quaresma

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5867 bytes --]