On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:12:05AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:31:36PM +0000, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> On Monday 28 of October 2013 14:56:49 Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:57:04AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 28, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >>>>> Trusted Foundations is a TrustZone-based secure monitor for ARM that
> >>>>> can be invoked using the same SMC-based API on all supported
> >>>>> platforms. This patch adds initial basic support for Trusted
> >>>>> Foundations using the ARM firmware API. Current features are limited
> >>>>> to the ability to boot secondary processors.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note: The API followed by Trusted Foundations does *not* follow the
> >>>>> SMC
> >>>>> calling conventions. It has nothing to do with PSCI neither and is
> >>>>> only
> >>>>> relevant to devices that use Trusted Foundations (like most
> >>>>> Tegra-based
> >>>>> retail devices).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acour...@nvidia.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.f...@samsung.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> .../arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundations.txt | 20 ++++++
> >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt | 1 +
> >>>>> arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 +
> >>>>> arch/arm/Makefile | 1 +
> >>>>> arch/arm/firmware/Kconfig | 28 ++++++++
> >>>>> arch/arm/firmware/Makefile | 1 +
> >>>>> arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c | 79
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/include/asm/trusted_foundations.h
> >>>>> | 67 ++++++++++++++++++ 8 files changed, 199 insertions(+)
> >>>>> create mode 100644
> >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundatio
> >>>>> ns.txt create mode 100644 arch/arm/firmware/Kconfig
> >>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/firmware/Makefile
> >>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
> >>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/trusted_foundations.h
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git
> >>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundat
> >>>>> ions.txt
> >>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundat
> >>>>> ions.txt new file mode 100644
> >>>>> index 0000000..2ec75c9
> >>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>> +++
> >>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundat
> >>>>> ions.txt @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> >>>>> +Trusted Foundations
> >>>>> +-------------------
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +Boards that use the Trusted Foundations secure monitor can signal
> >>>>> its
> >>>>> +presence by declaring a node compatible with
> >>>>> "tl,trusted-foundations"
> >>>>> +under the /firmware/ node
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +Required properties:
> >>>>> +- compatible : "tl,trusted-foundations"
> >>>>> +- version-major : major version number of Trusted Foundations
> >>>>> firmware
> >>>>> +- version-minor: minor version number of Trusted Foundations
> >>>>> firmware
> >>>>
> >>>> vendor prefix version.
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying he should use tl,version-major tl,version-minor? For
> >>> bindings that are already vendor-specific we haven't (on ARM) asked for
> >>> vendor prefix on properties. It doesn't mean that we should keep going
> >>> down that route though, so I'm just asking for clarification for my own
> >>> edification. :)
> >>
> >> This is a good question. We should decide what the right thing (TM) is and
> >> write it down. I, on the contrary, was convinced that it's the way Kumar
> >> says.
> >
> > The impression I got was that properties should be prefixed when they're
> > extremely vendor-specific and could clash with a more generic property. I'm
> > not
> > sure that firmware will ever have a generic binding given the variation
> > even in
> > the set of implemented functionality.
> >
> > I would imagine that there are many ways different firmwares might be
> > versioned, and I can't see version-major or version-minor clashing with a
> > generic property we might add later. However prefixing would not be
> > harmful, so
> > I'm not opposed to it if others want that.
> >
> > Another option would be to support a fallback compatible list (e.g.
> > "tl,trusted-foundations-${MAJOR}-${MINOR}", "tl,trusted-foundations"), and
> > get
> > versioning information from there. Given that could be painful to handle I
> > don't want to force it if not required.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
>
> I'm of the opinion that making all vendor specific properties vendor prefixed
> is the easiest rule of thumb and leaves no gray area to have to argue about.
That would really help all of us to self-police our submissions and
reduce the burden on the DT maintainer team.
-Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
