On 26/09/26 22:41:00, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > On 25/09/26 12:59:28, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Thanks for the detailed analysis. > > > > I am pulling in Jens for OP-TEE and I'll have a closer look next week as > > well. > > the concernt I read - please correct me if I am wrong - is that this code > affects > downstream projects. > > This is just not acceptable to me - downstream implementations should have > been > posted to prevent exactly these kind issues. > > We spent time and effort doing an implementation and sharing it with the > community - it wouldnt be fair to us to block this merge on the basis of > downstream projects being impacted. > >
in summary and to be very clear 1- the upstream CID derivation is the u-boot/op-tee contract that matches mainline linux's ufshcd_create_device_id(). The contract is an OP-TEE-defined ABI, not a Global Platform spec. 2. Moreover CID-key is OP-TEE's own HUK-based derivation, not GP, not JEDEC. 3- Nothing here blocks anyone from overriding the static ufs_rpmb_build_cid() downstream. 3- if downstream scheme differs, that's the cost of having kept it out of tree, not a reason to hold this series for speculative plug-in infrastructure with a single backend.
