Hi, On 07.11.19 22:28, Adam Ford wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 9:43 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 04:21:55PM +0000, Leonard Crestez wrote: >>> On 4/17/2019 4:33 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>>>> I don't yet buy the security argument. There are many more shared parts >>>>>> on the SoC, like the clock controller, that would need to be taken away >>>>>> from the non-secure world if one would want to run an untrusted OS >>>>>> kernel on a i.MX8M system. >>>>>> >>>>>> To properly implement security on any i.MX8M based system the firmware >>>>>> would need to grow something like a full ARM SCPI implementation, so >>>>>> all shared critical peripherals are solely under firmware control. >>>>> >>>>> It might be possible to rework this to use some form of SCMI-over-SMC >>>>> instead of vendor-specific SMCCC SIP calls > > I was just curious to know if there is any progress being made on > this. The i.mx8mm-evk is missing functionality upstream and I think > the power domain support would help enable some of these features. > Has there been any decision or action taken in this topic? Will the power domain driver as proposed in this patch be upstreamed at some time, or rather not? I try to build a mainline BSP for i.MX8MM (ML U-Boot, ML TF-A, ML Linux) and I integrated display and graphics support from the downstream NXP kernel. While most things already work fine, there's the issue of how to handle the power domains. Currently I need to ungate some clocks in the TF-A BL31 to get for example the GPU running. If I understand this correctly the proposed power domain driver could handle this in Linux otherwise. Thanks, Frieder
