Message-ID: <bdac5637-767e-4310-9ecd-fad5490e9b3c@foss.st.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:47:30 +0100
From: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Jens Wiklander
	<jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH v2 4/4] remoteproc: stm32: Add support of an
 OP-TEE TA to load the firmware

Hello Mathieu,

On 2/5/24 10:13, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/2/24 20:53, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 07:33:35PM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/1/24 17:02, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 04:06:37PM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>>>> hello Mathieu,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/24 19:52, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/26/24 18:11, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:04:33AM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The new TEE remoteproc device is used to manage remote firmware in a
>>>>>>>>> secure, trusted context. The 'st,stm32mp1-m4-tee' compatibility is
>>>>>>>>> introduced to delegate the loading of the firmware to the trusted
>>>>>>>>> execution context. In such cases, the firmware should be signed and
>>>>>>>>> adhere to the image format defined by the TEE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> V1 to V2 update:
>>>>>>>>> - remove the select "TEE_REMOTEPROC" in STM32_RPROC config as detected by
>>>>>>>>>   the kernel test robot:
>>>>>>>>>      WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for TEE_REMOTEPROC
>>>>>>>>>      Depends on [n]: REMOTEPROC [=y] && OPTEE [=n]
>>>>>>>>>      Selected by [y]:
>>>>>>>>>      - STM32_RPROC [=y] && (ARCH_STM32 || COMPILE_TEST [=y]) && REMOTEPROC [=y]
>>>>>>>>> - Fix initialized trproc variable in  stm32_rproc_probe
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>  drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 144 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>>>>>>>> index fcc0001e2657..cf6a21bac945 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>  #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
>>>>>>>>>  #include <linux/reset.h>
>>>>>>>>>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/tee_remoteproc.h>
>>>>>>>>>  #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>>>>>>>>> @@ -49,6 +50,9 @@
>>>>>>>>>  #define M4_STATE_STANDBY	4
>>>>>>>>>  #define M4_STATE_CRASH		5
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> +/* Remote processor unique identifier aligned with the Trusted Execution Environment definitions */
>>>>>>>>> +#define STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID    0
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>  struct stm32_syscon {
>>>>>>>>>  	struct regmap *map;
>>>>>>>>>  	u32 reg;
>>>>>>>>> @@ -90,6 +94,8 @@ struct stm32_rproc {
>>>>>>>>>  	struct stm32_mbox mb[MBOX_NB_MBX];
>>>>>>>>>  	struct workqueue_struct *workqueue;
>>>>>>>>>  	bool hold_boot_smc;
>>>>>>>>> +	bool fw_loaded;
>>>>>>>>> +	struct tee_rproc *trproc;
>>>>>>>>>  	void __iomem *rsc_va;
>>>>>>>>>  };
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> @@ -257,6 +263,91 @@ static int stm32_rproc_release(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>>>>>>  	return err;
>>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_elf_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc,
>>>>>>>>> +					    const struct firmware *fw)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>>>>>>>>> +	unsigned int ret = 0;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	if (rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED)
>>>>>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	ret = tee_rproc_load_fw(ddata->trproc, fw);
>>>>>>>>> +	if (!ret)
>>>>>>>>> +		ddata->fw_loaded = true;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	return ret;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_elf_load(struct rproc *rproc,
>>>>>>>>> +				    const struct firmware *fw)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>>>>>>>>> +	unsigned int ret;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	/*
>>>>>>>>> +	 * This function can be called by remote proc for recovery
>>>>>>>>> +	 * without the sanity check. In this case we need to load the firmware
>>>>>>>>> +	 * else nothing done here as the firmware has been preloaded for the
>>>>>>>>> +	 * sanity check to be able to parse it for the resource table.
>>>>>>>>> +	 */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This comment is very confusing - please consider refactoring.  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +	if (ddata->fw_loaded)
>>>>>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure about keeping a flag to indicate the status of the loaded firmware.
>>>>>>>> It is not done for the non-secure method, I don't see why it would be needed for
>>>>>>>> the secure one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference is on the sanity check.
>>>>>>> - in rproc_elf_sanity_check we  parse the elf file to verify that it is
>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>> - in stm32_rproc_tee_elf_sanity_check we have to do the same, that means to
>>>>>>> authenticate it. the authentication is done during the load.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this flag is used to avoid to reload it twice time.
>>>>>>> refactoring the comment should help to understand this flag
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An alternative would be to bypass the sanity check. But this lead to same
>>>>>>> limitation.
>>>>>>> Before loading the firmware in remoteproc_core, we call rproc_parse_fw() that is
>>>>>>> used to get the resource table address. To get it from tee we need to
>>>>>>> authenticate the firmware so load it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I spent a long time thinking about this patchset.  Looking at the code as it
>>>>>> is now, request_firmware() in rproc_boot() is called even when the TEE is
>>>>>> responsible for loading the firmware.  There should be some conditional code
>>>>>> that calls either request_firmware() or tee_rproc_load_fw().  The latter should
>>>>>> also be renamed to tee_rproc_request_firmware() to avoid confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The request_firmware() call is needed in both cases to get the image from the
>>>>> filesystem. The tee_rproc_load_fw() gets, as input, the struct firmware provided
>>>>> by request_firmware().
>>>>
>>>> The cover letter clearly state the secure side is responsible for loading the
>>>> firmware image but here you're telling me it has to be loaded twice.  This is
>>>> very confusing.
>>>
>>> Concerning the call of request_firmware()
>>>
>>> By "both cases" I would say that the call of request_firmware() is needed in
>>> both modes:
>>> - the ELF firmware is parsed and loaded by linux (legacy)
>>> - the binary firmware is parsed and loaded by OP-TEE.
>>>
>>> The Op-TEE is not able to get the firmware image from the file system.
>>>
>>>
>>> Concerning the call of tee_rproc_load_fw twice time
>>>
>>> There are 2 use cases:
>>>
>>> - First boot of the remote processor:
>>>
>>>   1) The Linux rproc gets the binary firmware image from the file system by
>>>      calling  request_firmware(). A copy is stored in memory.
>>
>> Right.  And I think tee_rproc_load_fw() should be called right after
>> request_firmware() if rproc::tee_rproc_interface is valid.  At that point the TEE
>> app may or may not do the firmware authentication, that is application specific.

FYI, I am close to completing V3 for my series. However, I am facing an issue
with rproc_load_segments() that requires the implementation of ops->load on start.
Therefore, just inserting a tee_rproc_load_fw() call is not possible.

Due to this constraint, I did not find a solution that matches your
recommendations. Nevertheless, I will propose another solution in my V3, trying
to take into account as many of your comments/requests as possible, including
updating of the remoteproc_core.c to simplify the sequence.


Regards,
Arnaud


>>
>>>   2) the linux performs a sanity check on the firmware calling
>>>      rproc_fw_sanity_check()
>>> 	=> from OP-TEE point of view this means to autenticate the firmware
>>> 	=> let consider in this exemple that we bypass this step
>>>            (ops->sanity_check = NULL)
>>
>> Ok
>>
>>> 		
>>>   3) the linux rproc call rproc_parse_fw() to get the resource table
>>> 	=> From OP-TEE point of view the resource table is available only when
>>>            the firmware is loaded
>>
>> Right, and it should have been loaded already.  If it is not then the TEE should
>> return an error.
>>
>>> 	=> We need to call tee_rproc_load_fw() to be able then to get the
>>>            address of the resource table.
>>
>> See my comment above - at this point the TEE should already have the firmware.
>> As such the only thing left is to get the address of the resource table, which
>> you already do in rproc_tee_get_rsc_table().  The upper part of that function
>> should be spun off in a new static function to deal with the TEE API, something
>> like _rproc_tee_get_rsc_table().  The new function should also be called in
>> tee_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table() rather than keeping a cache value in
>> trproc->rsc_va.
>>
>>>   4) The Linux rproc calls rproc_handle_resources() to parse the resource table.
>>>   5) The linux rproc calls rproc_start()
>>> 	- load the firrmware calling rproc_load_segments()
>>> 		=> we don't want to call tee_rproc_load_fw() it a second time
>>
>> And that is fine if the TEE app has already placed the program segments in
>> memory.
>>
>>> 	- start the firmware calling ops->start()
>>>
>>> - Reboot on crash recovery using rproc_boot_recovery()
>>>
>>>   1)  The Linux rproc gets the binary firmware image from the file system by
>>>      calling request_firmware(). A copy is stored in memory.
>>>   5) The linux rproc calls rproc_start()
>>> 	- load the firrmware calling rproc_load_segments()
>>> 		=> we have to call tee_rproc_load_fw() to reload the firmware
>>
>> Loading the firmware in the TEE should be done right after request_firmware()
>> has been called, the same way it is done in the boot path.  If there isn't a
>> need to reload the TEE firmware than the TEE application should ignore the
>> request.
> 
> I need to prototype to verify this proposal.
> I will come back with a V3.

> 
> Thank you for the advice and review!
> 
> Regard,
> Arnaud
> 
>>
>>> 	- start the firmware calling ops->start()
>>>
>>> In first use case we have to load the firmware on rproc_parse_fw(), in second
>>> usecase on rproc_load_segments().
>>>
>>> This is the point I have tried to solve with the ddata->fw_loaded variable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm also confused as to why stm32_rproc_tee_elf_sanity_check() is calling
>>>> tee_rproc_load_fw().  There should be one call to load the firmware and another
>>>> to perform a sanity check on it.  If the sanity check is done at load time by
>>>> the secure world then ops::sanity_check() is NULL.
>>>
>>> Sure, make sense to remove the sanity_check ops
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Arnaud
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of what this patchset does makes sense, but some of it needs to be moved
>>>> around.  
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mathieu
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to integrate in remoteproc_core the solution could probably have to
>>>>> create the equivalent of the rproc_fw_boot() to load the firmware with an
>>>>> external method. Here is an example based on a new rproc_ops ( not tested)
>>>>>
>>>>> + static int rproc_fw_ext_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + 	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>>>>> + 	const char *name = rproc->firmware;
>>>>> + 	int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size);
>>>>> + 	
>>>>> + 	/* ops to load and start the remoteprocessor */
>>>>> + 	ret = rproc->ops->boot(rproc, fw);
>>>>> + 	if (ret)
>>>>> + 		return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	/*
>>>>> + 	 * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
>>>>> + 	 * just a nop
>>>>> + 	 */
>>>>> + 	ret = rproc_enable_iommu(rproc);
>>>>> + 	if (ret) {
>>>>> + 		dev_err(dev, "can't enable iommu: %d\n", ret);
>>>>> + 		return ret;
>>>>> + 	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	/* Prepare rproc for firmware loading if needed */
>>>>> + 	ret = rproc_prepare_device(rproc);
>>>>> + 	if (ret) {
>>>>> + 		dev_err(dev, "can't prepare rproc %s: %d\n", rproc->name, ret);
>>>>> + 		goto disable_iommu;
>>>>> + 	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	ret = rproc_set_rsc_table(rproc);
>>>>> + 	if (ret) {
>>>>> + 		dev_err(dev, "can't load resource table: %d\n", ret);
>>>>> + 		goto unprepare_device;
>>>>> + 	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	/* reset max_notifyid */
>>>>> + 	rproc->max_notifyid = -1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	/* reset handled vdev */
>>>>> + 	rproc->nb_vdev = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	/* handle fw resources which are required to boot rproc */
>>>>> + 	ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc_loading_handlers);
>>>>> + 	if (ret) {
>>>>> + 		dev_err(dev, "Failed to process resources: %d\n", ret);
>>>>> + 		goto clean_up_resources;
>>>>> + 	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	/* Allocate carveout resources associated to rproc */
>>>>> + 	ret = rproc_alloc_registered_carveouts(rproc);
>>>>> + 	if (ret) {
>>>>> + 		dev_err(dev, "Failed to allocate associated carveouts: %d\n",
>>>>> + 			ret);
>>>>> + 		goto clean_up_resources;
>>>>> + 	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> + 	return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + clean_up_resources:
>>>>> + 	rproc_resource_cleanup(rproc);
>>>>> + unprepare_rproc:
>>>>> + 	/* release HW resources if needed */
>>>>> + 	rproc_unprepare_device(rproc);
>>>>> + disable_iommu:
>>>>> + 	rproc_disable_iommu(rproc);
>>>>> + 	return ret;
>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>> {
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> - 		ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
>>>>> + 		if(rproc->ops->boot)
>>>>> + 			ret = rproc_fw_ext_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
>>>>> + 		else
>>>>> + 			ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
>>>>>
>>>>> Another advantage of this solution is that it opens the framework to other
>>>>> formats. For instance it could be a way to support dtb format requested in [RFC]
>>>>> Passing device-tree to remoteproc [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/f67cd822-4e29-71f2-7c42-e11dbaa6cd8c@kalrayinc.com/T/#t
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Arnaud
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I touched on that before but please rename rproc_tee_get_rsc_table() to
>>>>>> rproc_tee_elf_load_rsc_table().  I also suggest to introduce a new function,
>>>>>> rproc_tee_get_loaded_rsc_table() that would be called from
>>>>>> rproc_tee_elf_load_rsc_table().  That way we don't need trproc->rsc_va.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also think tee_rproc should be renamed to "rproc_tee_interface" and folded
>>>>>> under struct rproc.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the above most of the problems with the current implementation should
>>>>>> naturally go away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mathieu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +	ret = tee_rproc_load_fw(ddata->trproc, fw);
>>>>>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>>>>>> +		return ret;
>>>>>>>>> +	ddata->fw_loaded = true;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	/* Update the resource table parameters. */
>>>>>>>>> +	if (rproc_tee_get_rsc_table(ddata->trproc)) {
>>>>>>>>> +		/* No resource table: reset the related fields. */
>>>>>>>>> +		rproc->cached_table = NULL;
>>>>>>>>> +		rproc->table_ptr = NULL;
>>>>>>>>> +		rproc->table_sz = 0;
>>>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static struct resource_table *
>>>>>>>>> +stm32_rproc_tee_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
>>>>>>>>> +					  const struct firmware *fw)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	return tee_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(ddata->trproc);
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	return tee_rproc_start(ddata->trproc);
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	/* Nothing to do, remote proc already started by the secured context. */
>>>>>>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>>>>>>>>> +	int err;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	stm32_rproc_request_shutdown(rproc);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	err = tee_rproc_stop(ddata->trproc);
>>>>>>>>> +	if (err)
>>>>>>>>> +		return err;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	ddata->fw_loaded = false;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	return stm32_rproc_release(rproc);
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>  static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>>>  	struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent;
>>>>>>>>> @@ -319,7 +410,14 @@ static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  static int stm32_rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>>>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>>> -	if (rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw))
>>>>>>>>> +	struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>>>>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	if (ddata->trproc)
>>>>>>>>> +		ret = rproc_tee_get_rsc_table(ddata->trproc);
>>>>>>>>> +	else
>>>>>>>>> +		ret = rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
>>>>>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>>>>>>  		dev_warn(&rproc->dev, "no resource table found for this firmware\n");
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  	return 0;
>>>>>>>>> @@ -693,8 +791,22 @@ static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_ops = {
>>>>>>>>>  	.get_boot_addr	= rproc_elf_get_boot_addr,
>>>>>>>>>  };
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> +static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_tee_ops = {
>>>>>>>>> +	.prepare	= stm32_rproc_prepare,
>>>>>>>>> +	.start		= stm32_rproc_tee_start,
>>>>>>>>> +	.stop		= stm32_rproc_tee_stop,
>>>>>>>>> +	.attach		= stm32_rproc_tee_attach,
>>>>>>>>> +	.kick		= stm32_rproc_kick,
>>>>>>>>> +	.parse_fw	= stm32_rproc_parse_fw,
>>>>>>>>> +	.find_loaded_rsc_table = stm32_rproc_tee_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table,
>>>>>>>>> +	.get_loaded_rsc_table = stm32_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table,
>>>>>>>>> +	.sanity_check	= stm32_rproc_tee_elf_sanity_check,
>>>>>>>>> +	.load		= stm32_rproc_tee_elf_load,
>>>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>  static const struct of_device_id stm32_rproc_match[] = {
>>>>>>>>> -	{ .compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4" },
>>>>>>>>> +	{.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4",},
>>>>>>>>> +	{.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee",},
>>>>>>>>>  	{},
>>>>>>>>>  };
>>>>>>>>>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, stm32_rproc_match);
>>>>>>>>> @@ -853,6 +965,7 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>>  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>>>>>>>  	struct stm32_rproc *ddata;
>>>>>>>>>  	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>>>>>>>> +	struct tee_rproc *trproc = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>  	struct rproc *rproc;
>>>>>>>>>  	unsigned int state;
>>>>>>>>>  	int ret;
>>>>>>>>> @@ -861,11 +974,31 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>>  	if (ret)
>>>>>>>>>  		return ret;
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> -	rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, &st_rproc_ops, NULL, sizeof(*ddata));
>>>>>>>>> -	if (!rproc)
>>>>>>>>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>>> +	if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee")) {
>>>>>>>>> +		trproc = tee_rproc_register(dev, STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID);
>>>>>>>>> +		if (IS_ERR(trproc)) {
>>>>>>>>> +			dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(trproc),
>>>>>>>>> +				      "signed firmware not supported by TEE\n");
>>>>>>>>> +			return PTR_ERR(trproc);
>>>>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>>>>> +		/*
>>>>>>>>> +		 * Delegate the firmware management to the secure context.
>>>>>>>>> +		 * The firmware loaded has to be signed.
>>>>>>>>> +		 */
>>>>>>>>> +		dev_info(dev, "Support of signed firmware only\n");
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure what this adds.  Please remove.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is used to inform the user that only a signed firmware can be loaded, not
>>>>>>> an ELF file.
>>>>>>> I have a patch in my pipe to provide the supported format in the debugfs. In a
>>>>>>> first step, I can suppress this message and we can revisit the issue when I push
>>>>>>> the debugfs proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Arnaud
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>>> +	rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, np->name,
>>>>>>>>> +			    trproc ? &st_rproc_tee_ops : &st_rproc_ops,
>>>>>>>>> +			    NULL, sizeof(*ddata));
>>>>>>>>> +	if (!rproc) {
>>>>>>>>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>>> +		goto free_tee;
>>>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  	ddata = rproc->priv;
>>>>>>>>> +	ddata->trproc = trproc;
>>>>>>>>> +	if (trproc)
>>>>>>>>> +		trproc->rproc = rproc;
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  	rproc_coredump_set_elf_info(rproc, ELFCLASS32, EM_NONE);
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> @@ -916,6 +1049,10 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>>  		device_init_wakeup(dev, false);
>>>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>>>  	rproc_free(rproc);
>>>>>>>>> +free_tee:
>>>>>>>>> +	if (trproc)
>>>>>>>>> +		tee_rproc_unregister(trproc);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>  	return ret;
>>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> @@ -937,6 +1074,8 @@ static void stm32_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>>  		device_init_wakeup(dev, false);
>>>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>>>  	rproc_free(rproc);
>>>>>>>>> +	if (ddata->trproc)
>>>>>>>>> +		tee_rproc_unregister(ddata->trproc);
>>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  static int stm32_rproc_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-stm32 mailing list
> Linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
> https://st-md-mailman.stormreply.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-stm32

Powered by blists - more mailing lists