Hi, On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 11:09 PM Jorge Ramirez <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
This follows the OP-TEE ABI. Further extensions to the OP-TEE ABI are best discussed in an issue or pull request at https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os Cheers, Jens
