On Wed, 1 Jun 2022, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 11:23:50AM +0000, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote: > > Introduce device-perms property which is intended to set the device > > permissions for the System Management interfaces. > > An example of this interface is SCMI (System Control and Management > > Interface) which controls clocks/power-domains/resets etc from the > > Firmware. This property sets the device_id to set the device permissions > > for the Fimware using BASE_SET_DEVICE_PERMISSIONS message (see 4.2.2.10 of [0]). > > Is that an exhaustive list of controls? Seems like there would be a > GET_DEVICE_PERMISSIONS. > > > Device permissions management described in DEN 0056, Section 4.2.2.10 [0]. > > Given parameter should set the device_id, needed to set device > > permissions in the Firmware. > > This property is used by trusted Agent to set permissions for the devices, > > passed-through to the non-trusted Agents. Trusted Agent will use device-perms to > > set the Device permissions for the Firmware (See Section 4.2.2.10 [0] > > for details). > > Agents concept is described in Section 4.2.1 [0]. > > As I said on the call discussing this, this looks very similar to other > proposals wanting to control or check permissions on devices handled by > some provider. While the consumer of the binding is different in various > proposals, that doesn't really matter from a DT perspective. DT is just > describing some type of connection between nodes. So I'm looking for > collaboration here with folks that have made prior proposals. To put it > another way, for a new common binding like this, I want to see more than > one user. Do you have a pointer to another similar proposal or the name of someone that might be interested and might be having a second use-case for this?
