On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:38:52AM -0700, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:43 PM François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I assume this needs to be analyzed from System Device Tree perspective: > > https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/components/psa-ffa-manifest-binding.html > > That's not what we're reviewing upstream[1]. >
Thanks Rob for including me. I wasn't aware of such formal proposal of bindings from the firmware/system perspective. I agree and happy to re-use the bindings if required. However, the idea with bindings for OSPM(mainly kernel with no hypervisor) was to keep it minimal or even zero(which is not possible as the specification lacks any mechanism to get the UUID list for the partitions. Also, where are these system/firmware DT bindings getting reviewed ? There are so many bindings used in some of these firmware/systems without much(even zero) review of them on a list, so I am bit worried to use them as is. Should they not get reviewed on some list if not existing device-tree mailing list. Sorry if they are on some list which I am not yet part of, happy to get added to them. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
