Hi Ard,
On Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:48 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:29, Ran Wang <ran.wan...@nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:29 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 09:04, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklan...@linaro.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 04:36:53PM +0800, Ran Wang wrote:
> > > > > This patch add ACPI support for optee driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ran Wang <ran.wan...@nxp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/tee/optee/core.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/core.c b/drivers/tee/optee/core.c
> > > > > index cf4718c6d35d..8fb261f4b9db 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/tee/optee/core.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/core.c
> > > > > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> > > > >
> > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> > > > >
> > > > > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/errno.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/io.h>
> > > > > @@ -735,12 +736,21 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> > > > > optee_dt_match[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of,
> > > > > optee_dt_match);
> > > > >
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > > +static const struct acpi_device_id optee_acpi_match[] = {
> > > > > + { "OPTEE01",},
> > >
> > > You cannot just invent ACPI HIDs like that. The 4 character prefix
> > > is a vendor ID that is assigned by the UEFI forum, the 4 following
> > > digits are up to the vendor to assign,
> >
> > Thanks for this info. Could you please show me where I can find the
> > guide/example for this assign process?
> >
>
> I think it is better to ask around internally. As far as I know, NXP already
> owns a ACPI/PNP vendor prefix.
OK
> > > > > + { },
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dwc3_acpi_match);
> > >
> > > dwc3_acpi_match ?? Does this even build?
> >
> > My bad, I was referring dwc3 code as an example, will correct it.
> >
> > But looks this typo didn’t trigger error in my unit-test.
> >
>
> Does your build have CONFIG_ACPI enabled?
Yes
> > >
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +
> > > > > static struct platform_driver optee_driver = {
> > > > > .probe = optee_probe,
> > > > > .remove = optee_remove,
> > > > > .driver = {
> > > > > .name = "optee",
> > > > > .of_match_table = optee_dt_match,
> > > > > + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(optee_acpi_match),
> > > > > },
> > > > > };
> > > > > module_platform_driver(optee_driver);
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This looks simple enough. Ard, is this what you had in mind earlier?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not really.
> > >
> > > On SynQuacer, we use
> > >
> > > Device (TOS0) {
> > > Name (_HID, "PRP0001")
> > > Name (_UID, 0x0)
> > > Name (_DSD, Package () {
> > > ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
> > > Package () {
> > > Package (2) { "compatible", "linaro,optee-tz" },
> > > Package (2) { "method", "smc" },
> > > }
> > > })
> > > }
> > >
> > > which does not require any changes to Linux. So I don't think this patch
> > > is needed at all tbh.
> >
> > Thanks for this example, but actually I failed to trigger kernel optee
> > probe function by using above code in ACPI table.
> >
> > And I am curious how this 'compatible' properties be picked up by kernel
> > when try to match driver in ACPI mode?
> >
>
> On SynQuacer,
>
> $ cat /sys/devices/platform/PRP0001:00/firmware_node/modalias
> of:Ntos0TClinaro,optee-tz
>
> > My understanding is to get it done by feeding .acpi_match_table with
> > something, right?
> >
>
> The PRP0001 HID is handled in a special way. Please grep the Linux source if
> you are curious to understand how this is implemented.
Yes, my failure is due to without PRP0001, and I have found the Doc in kernel
code explaining that. Now it works fine on my side :)
Thanks for the educate!
Regards,
Ran
