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

Thomas Perrot
2026-02-03T16:29:36Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3065 bytes --]

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
> >
> >
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#66180):
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/66180
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/117397331/5443093
> Group Owner: yocto+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [thomas.perrot@bootlin.com
> ]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>

--
Thomas Perrot, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5040 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]