linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: Add TEE remoteproc service binding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251229232530.GA2753472-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:25:30 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...nel.org>,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: Add TEE remoteproc
 service binding

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 04:39:12PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> Add a device tree binding for the TEE-based remote processor control
> service implemented as an OP-TEE Trusted Application identified by
> UUID 80a4c275-0a47-4905-8285-1486a9771a08.
> 
> The TEE service node is a child of the "linaro,optee-tz" firmware node and
> acts as a container for remoteproc devices that are controlled via TEE.

Is this generic for any remoteproc device or just ST's remoteproc. Looks 
like the latter to me.

> In addition, the "linaro,optee-tz" binding is updated to specify the
> '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' values used for child TEE service
> nodes.

I'm pretty sure I already rejected per service/app child nodes for 
OP-TEE when its binding was submitted. If we do need something in DT 
to define some resources, then can't we have some sort of 
standard/common communications channel? I don't care to see some sort of 
free-for-all where we have every vendor doing their own thing. OP-TEE 
needs to standarize this.

Rob