On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:50 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The parameters are similar to the ones used by IBM's vTPM and the > various I2C tpm drivers. Bindings describe h/w (or firmware interfaces in this case), not drivers. > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../bindings/security/tpm/tpm_ftpm_tee.txt | 13 +++++++++++++ > .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt | 1 + > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm_ftpm_tee.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm_ftpm_tee.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm_ftpm_tee.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..20fca67a56c4 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm_ftpm_tee.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > +Required properties: > +- compatible: should be "microsoft,ftpm" > +- linux,sml-base: 64-bit base address of the reserved memory allocated > + for the firmware event log > +- linux,sml-size: size of the memory allocated for the firmware event log Firmware is defining linux specific properties? What if I want to run BSD? We should use 'reg' here instead. What memory is used here? This should be under /reserved-memory if it is part of "main" memory. Really, I'd prefer to not see this in DT at all. Make the firmware discoverable. Why repeat the mistakes of non-discoverable h/w in s/w interfaces? OP-Tee at least has defined a mechanism to enumerate TEE functions IIRC. Rob
