[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52fa1899-6eb9-389f-2ff1-22164356df66@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 18:02:58 +0000
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Patrick DELAUNAY <patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com>,
Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>
Cc: Etienne CARRIERE <etienne.carriere@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...s.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvmem: stm32: add OP-TEE support for STM32MP13x
On 09/11/2022 17:35, Patrick DELAUNAY wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not add TEE client based new driver instead of ifdefing around
>>>> this driver? Also I see there is not much common across both drivers
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hesitate between the 2 solutions. I choose this update to handle
>>> the STM32MP15 support with OP-TEE.
>>
>> How are you to handing this?
>>
>>>
>>> For backward compatibility reason the same driver STM32 ROMEM
>>> associated to compatible "st,stm32mp15-bsec" should be kept.
>>>
>>> - the lower OTP can directly accessible by Linux (the IP is not
>>> secured) => boot with SPL
>>
>> Can we determine this at runtime?
>
>
> Not directly with IP register, but we detect the OP-TEE support at runtime.
>
You mean using CONFIG_OP_TEE ?
>
>>
>>>
>>> - the upper OTP and the write operation are requested by
>>> STMicroelectronics SMCs
>>>
>>> => boot with TF-A SPMIN and old OP-TEE (before migration to STM32
>>> BSEC PTA)
>>>
>>>
>>> But in the future OP-TEE the access to OTP should be also done with
>>> STM32 BSEC PTA...
>>
>> Given that we have only one compatible for these two type of
>> combinations how are you planning to deal with both the cases and
>> still be backward compatible?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists