Hi Jarkko,
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 04:22:04PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > OK, if ffa_init() is leveled up in the initcall hierarchy, shouldn't
> > > that be enough as long as ko's can be found from initramfs?
> >
> > As you mentioned, this is handled in Patch #1.
> > However, although ffa_init() is called first,
> > unless tpm_crb_ffa_init() is also invoked,
> > crb_acpi_driver_init() will fail with -EPROBE_DEFER.
> >
> > Please note that IMA is always built-in and cannot be built as a module.
>
> Sure but if one needs IMA, then tpm_crb_ffa can be compiled as built-in
> with zero code changes.
All of my describtion based on all things are built as "built-in".
in case of ffa_init() changes the init level to root_initcall,
so, the ffa_device will be produced first before the trial of TPM probe.
Note that tpm_crb_ffa_init() which is the "ffa_driver" is called in
device_initcall level. I mean
ffa_init() -> arm_ffa -> root_initcall
tpm_crb_ffa_init() -> device_initcall
crb_acpi_driver_init() -> device_initcall
therefore, "crb_acpi_driver_init()" can be call first before
tpm_crb_ffa_init() since they're deployed in device_initcall.
If this happen, "crb_acpi_driver_init()" failed with -EPROBE_DEFER.
That's why this patch is required to probe "tpm_crb_ffa" when
crb_acpi_driver_init() called to complete the TPM device probe before
IMA subsystem initailization.
Thanks.
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
