On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 12:49:49AM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote: > Add bindings for the Qualcomm Trusted Execution Environment (TrEE) UEFI > Secure application (uefisecapp) client. > > Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../firmware/qcom,tee-uefisecapp.yaml | 38 +++++++++++++++++++ > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,tee-uefisecapp.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,tee-uefisecapp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,tee-uefisecapp.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..9e5de1005d5c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,tee-uefisecapp.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/qcom/qcom,rpmh-rsc.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Qualcomm Trusted Execution Environment UEFI Secure Application > + > +maintainers: > + - Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx> > + > +description: | > + Various Qualcomm SoCs do not allow direct access to UEFI variables. Instead, > + these need to be accessed via the UEFI Secure Application (uefisecapp), > + residing in the Trusted Execution Environment (TrEE). These bindings mark the > + presence of uefisecapp and allow the respective client driver to load and > + install efivar operations, providing the kernel with access to UEFI > + variables. > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + const: qcom,tee-uefisecapp > + > +required: > + - compatible > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + firmware { > + scm { > + compatible = "qcom,scm-sc8180x", "qcom,scm"; > + }; > + tee-uefisecapp { > + compatible = "qcom,tee-uefisecapp"; > + }; Do you expect some issues using the scm driver APIs without the any additions in the DT ? I mean can't you auto-discover by using the APIs. I haven't looked at the driver or any other patches in the series, but I would like to know if we can avoid adding any new bindings if it can be discovered via those SCM driver APIs. -- Regards, Sudeep
