DemesneGH commented on code in PR #245:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/teaclave-trustzone-sdk/pull/245#discussion_r2477422262


##########
cargo-optee/src/main.rs:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+// Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+// or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+// distributed with this work for additional information
+// regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+// to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+// "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+// with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+//
+//   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+//
+// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+// software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+// "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+// KIND, either express or implied.  See the License for the
+// specific language governing permissions and limitations
+// under the License.
+
+use clap::{Parser, Subcommand};
+use std::env;
+use std::path::PathBuf;
+use std::process::abort;
+
+mod ca_builder;
+mod common;
+mod ta_builder;
+
+use common::Arch;
+
+#[derive(Debug, Parser)]
+#[clap(version = env!("CARGO_PKG_VERSION"))]
+#[clap(about = "Build tool for OP-TEE Rust projects")]
+pub(crate) struct Cli {
+    #[clap(subcommand)]
+    cmd: Command,
+}
+
+#[derive(Debug, Parser)]
+struct BuildTypeCommonOptions {
+    /// Path to the app directory (default: current directory)
+    #[arg(long = "path", default_value = ".")]
+    path: PathBuf,
+
+    /// Target architecture: aarch64 or arm (default: aarch64)
+    #[arg(long = "arch", default_value = "aarch64")]
+    arch: Arch,
+
+    /// Path to the UUID file (default: ../uuid.txt)
+    #[arg(long = "uuid_path", default_value = "../uuid.txt")]
+    uuid_path: PathBuf,
+
+    /// Build in debug mode (default is release)
+    #[arg(long = "debug")]
+    debug: bool,
+}
+
+#[derive(Debug, Subcommand)]
+enum BuildCommand {
+    /// Build a Trusted Application
+    TA {
+        /// Enable std feature for the TA
+        #[arg(long = "std")]
+        std: bool,
+
+        /// Path to the TA dev kit directory (mandatory)
+        #[arg(long = "ta_dev_kit_dir", required = true)]
+        ta_dev_kit_dir: PathBuf,
+
+        /// Path to the TA signing key (default: 
$(TA_DEV_KIT_DIR)/keys/default_ta.pem)
+        #[arg(long = "signing_key")]
+        signing_key: Option<PathBuf>,
+
+        #[command(flatten)]
+        common: BuildTypeCommonOptions,
+    },
+    /// Build a Client Application (Host)
+    CA {
+        /// Path to the OP-TEE client export directory (mandatory)
+        #[arg(long = "optee_client_export", required = true)]
+        optee_client_export: PathBuf,
+
+        #[command(flatten)]
+        common: BuildTypeCommonOptions,
+    },
+}
+
+#[derive(Debug, Subcommand)]
+enum Command {

Review Comment:
   I think `cargo-optee` provides the convenience for building TAs, not 
mandatory to keep consistency with the original cargo cmd parameters.
   
   For example, the cargo-optee cmd:
   ```
   cargo-optee build ta \
     --ta_dev_kit_dir /opt/optee/export-ta_arm64 \
     --path ./ta \
     --arch aarch64
   ```
   will be converted to:
   ```
   TA_DEV_KIT_DIR=/opt/optee/export-ta_arm64 \
   RUSTFLAGS="-C panic=abort" \
   cargo build --target aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu --release \
     --config target.aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu.linker="aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc"
   ```
   for build.
   
   `--arch` is not consistent with cargo's cmdline but it will configure the 
target for developer's convenience. Do you mean we should use the `--target` in 
`cargo-optee`?
   If so, why not directly use cargo command, we don't need a wrapper.
   
   `feature std` is similar. It's not only converted to the `cargo build 
--features std`, but also decide the `target` and whether we use `xargo`. I can 
follow the cargo's cmd format, like `cargo-optee build ta --features std`, but 
it doesn't mean the same as in cargo.
   
   > From my perspective, **the cargo-optee build command should provide a 
seamless interface aligned with the existing cargo build workflow**,
   
   I've checked other tools `cargo-sgx` `cargo-near` which also defines their 
cmd lines different with original cargo. Any reasons on why we should follow 
`seamless interface` principle?



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to