Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH v2 4/4] remoteproc: stm32: Add support of an OP-TEE TA to load the firmware
From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Tue Feb 13 2024 - 13:40:14 EST
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 08:48, Arnaud POULIQUEN
<arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>
Thanks for the heads-up, let's see what you come up with. That said,
please provide as much information as possible on the constraints you
are facing.
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://st-md-mailman.stormreply.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-stm32