On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 12:03:25PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 18/01/2024 11:04, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: > > The "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee" compatible is utilized in a system configuration > > where the Cortex-M4 firmware is loaded by the Trusted execution Environment > > (TEE). > > For instance, this compatible is used in both the Linux and OP-TEE > > device-tree: > > - In OP-TEE, a node is defined in the device tree with the > > st,stm32mp1-m4-tee to support signed remoteproc firmware. > > Based on DT properties, OP-TEE authenticates, loads, starts, and stops > > the firmware. > > - On Linux, when the compatibility is set, the Cortex-M resets should not > > be declared in the device tree. > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > V1 to V2 updates > > - update "st,stm32mp1-m4" compatible description to generalize > > - remove the 'reset-names' requirement in one conditional branch, as the > > property is already part of the condition test. > > --- > > .../bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml | 52 +++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml > > index 370af61d8f28..6af821b15736 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/st,stm32-rproc.yaml > > @@ -16,7 +16,12 @@ maintainers: > > > > properties: > > compatible: > > - const: st,stm32mp1-m4 > > + enum: > > + - st,stm32mp1-m4 > > + - st,stm32mp1-m4-tee > > The patch looks good to me, but I wonder about this choice of two > compatibles. > > Basically this is the same hardware with the same interface, but two > compatibles to differentiate a bit different firmware setup. We have > already such cases for Qualcomm [1] [2] and new ones will be coming. [3] > > I wonder whether this should be rather the same compatible with > additional property, e.g. "st,tee-control" or "remote-control". > > [1] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7.1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml#L54 > > [2] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7.1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/qcom,ipa.yaml#L129 > (that's a bit different) > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20240124103623.GJ4906@thinkpad/ > > @Rob, > Any general guidance for this and Qualcomm? I think we have cases using compatible already as well. Either way is fine with me. Rob
