Hi, 2013/10/15 Alex Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 10/15/2013 04:07 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:45:34PM -0700, 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 <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../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 | 68 >>> +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 8 files changed, 200 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tl,trusted-foundations.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 >> >> >> Is having this under arch/arm appropriate? What happens if the API >> gets re-used on ARM64 for example? Would drivers/firmware be a better >> cross-arch location for this? > > > The reason why this has been put into arch/arm is that the firmware_ops > feature this patch depends also resides there > (arch/arm/include/asm/firmware.h). > > On the other hand it might also make sense to move firmware_ops out of ARM > since I don't see anything ARM-specific with it. Tomasz, could we have your > thoughts on this? I don't see anything wrong in moving this out of arch/arm, feel free to do so. However I guess that some (or all) of the names will have to be put into a more separate namespace, as the term "firmware" is a bit too generic IMHO. Possibly something like platform_firmware could be better. What do you think? Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
