On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:04:43PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: > 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? I think we can probably merge this under arch/arm now, and when we figure out what needs to be common with ARM64 we can move it out to a good location. It might be that mostly just a header file with ABI conventions needs to be shared, not actual implementation, for example. -Olof -- 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
