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

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

[Thomas Perrot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 438 bytes --]

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.

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

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

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

[Thomas Perrot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1080 bytes --]

Hello,

I'm following up on the RFC I sent in January [1] about moving OP-TEE
support from meta-arm to oe-core.                                     
   
Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion, Ross, Khem,
Sumit, Rahul and John.                                                
                  
OP-TEE is being adopted on RISC-V (non-ARM) platforms, and having it in
oe-core would avoid duplication and fragmentation across layers,
consolidate generic parts, and make it accessible without a dependency
on the ARM BSP layer. This follows the same model as U-Boot, which was
seen as a valid precedent.

Please let us know if you have any remaining concerns or objections,
then to move forward and maybe prepare a first patch series adding OP-
TEE recipes to oe-core with support for qemuarm64 and qemuriscv64 as a
first step.

Kind Regards,
Thomas Perrot

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/39d5c5061d0c220d37a302b5669df66d04ca41c0.camel@bootlin.com/

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

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