On Tue, 8 Sept 2026 at 14:01, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08.09.26 09:15, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Jan > > > > On Sun Aug 23, 2026 at 10:47 PM EEST, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> From: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> > >> > >> This is a transitional error that is resolved once an RPMB becomes > >> available. Keep it as debug output only. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> drivers/tee/optee/core.c | 5 ++++- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/core.c b/drivers/tee/optee/core.c > >> index ed8f2b6ec74..d3b5811afb8 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/tee/optee/core.c > >> +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/core.c > >> @@ -106,7 +106,10 @@ static int __enum_services(struct udevice *dev, > >> struct tee_shm *shm, size_t *shm > >> > >> ret = tee_invoke_func(dev, &arg, 1, ¶m); > >> if (ret || (arg.ret && arg.ret != TEE_ERROR_SHORT_BUFFER)) { > >> - dev_err(dev, "Enumeration command 0x%x failed: 0x%x\n", > >> pta_cmd, arg.ret); > >> + if (arg.ret != TEE_ERROR_STORAGE_NOT_AVAILABLE) > >> + dev_err(dev, "Enumeration command 0x%x failed: > >> 0x%x\n", pta_cmd, arg.ret); > >> + else > >> + dev_dbg(dev, "Enumeration command 0x%x failed due to > >> unavailable storage\n", pta_cmd); > > > > I don't mind changing this and I like the different error messages. Isn't > > the dgb message useful for > > users though? Or it is something that's not expected to happen in > > production systems so we can hide > > it? > > First of all, it's now something that will always happen due to probing > of services that need RPMB when there is none yet. And, as explained > above, it will be resolved later on. If you user misconfigured the > firmware, though, there will be no resolution - but that is a debugging > case.
Fair enough Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas <[email protected]> > > Jan > > -- > Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies > Linux Expert Center
