On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 08:05:57AM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE wrote: > Hello Sudeep and all, > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 19:52, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Sumit, > > > > I was holding off you reply as I didn't have all the background on this. > > Achin did mention that this is preparatory work for FFA notifications. > > I did mention to him that this is more than that, it is custom extension > > to address what FF-A notification is trying to in standard way. > > > > I share same opinion as Marc Z. > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:22:23AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 18:16, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > I don't care about OP-TEE. If you are proposing a contract between S > > > > and NS, it has to be TEE and OS independent. That's how the > > > > architecture works. > > > > > > > > > > Agree, here we are not proposing a common contract among the S and NS > > > world that every TEE (based on Arm TrustZone) will use to communicate > > > with REE (Linux in our case) but rather an OP-TEE specific > > > notifications feature that is built on top of OP-TEE specific ABIs. > > > > > > And I can see your arguments coming from an FFA perspective but there > > > are platforms like the ones based on Armv7 which don't support FFA > > > ABI. Maybe Jens can elaborate how this feature will fit in when FFA > > > comes into picture? > > > > > > > I can understand that but won't those platforms add the support both in > > the kernel(current series) and secure world to address notifications. > > While you could argue that it is small extension to what is already present > > but I prefer they support FF-A is they need such a support instead of adding > > custom mechanisms. It is hard to maintain and each vendor will deviate > > from this custom mechanism and soon we will have bunch of them to handle. > > There exist armv7-a platforms that expect OP-TEE notification support and > will not move the FF-A, like the stm32mp15. This platform won't move to FF-A > mainly due to the memory cost of the added SPM layer and the device physical > constraints. Fair enough on the use-case and the analysis for not being able to use FF-A. As you may already know it doesn't simply this problem. This has been discussed for years and FF-A was assumed to be the solution when FF-A spec work started. > We have a usecase for OP-TEE notification. We're working on the integration > of an SCMI server in OP-TEE. SCMI notification is a feature needed is this > scope and it requires OP-TEE async notification means as those proposed > here. > I am aware of this use-case, I understand. But I can only share rants which I know doesn't help much. > This OP-TEE async notif also brings a lot of value in OP-TEE as it allows a > OP-TEE secure thread (i.e. executing a trusted application service) to > gently wait on a secure interrupt (as a slow bus transaction completion or > many other usecase) with the CPU relaxed. This support is provided by the > proposed series. I believe existing device should be able to leverage this > OP-TEE feature without needing their OP-TEE to move to the new FF-A > interface. > While I agree these are nice to have in OPTEE, the timing is just odd. We are trying hard to push FF-A as standard solution to address all such issues that couldn't be solved with OPTEE + DT, now we are back to address the same in parallel to FF-A. -- Regards, Sudeep
