On 12/6/24 23:07, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 09:42:09AM GMT, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: >> Add a remoteproc TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) driver >> that will be probed by the TEE bus. If the associated Trusted >> application is supported on secure part this driver offers a client >> interface to load a firmware by the secure part. > > If...else? > >> This firmware could be authenticated by the secure trusted application. >> > > I would like for this to fully describe how this fits with the bus and > how it is expected to be used by a specific remoteproc driver. > >> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <[email protected]> >> --- >> Updates vs version v13: >> - define REMOTEPROC_TEE as bool instead of tristate, >> - remove the load of the firmware in rproc_tee_parse_fw as we will ensure >> that the firmware is loaded using the load_fw() operation. >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig | 10 + >> drivers/remoteproc/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_tee.c | 508 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 4 + >> include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h | 105 ++++++ >> 5 files changed, 628 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_tee.c >> create mode 100644 include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h [...] >> + >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(tee, rproc_tee_id_table); >> + >> +static struct tee_client_driver rproc_tee_fw_driver = { >> + .id_table = rproc_tee_id_table, >> + .driver = { >> + .name = KBUILD_MODNAME, >> + .bus = &tee_bus_type, >> + .probe = rproc_tee_probe, >> + .remove = rproc_tee_remove, >> + }, >> +}; >> + >> +static int __init rproc_tee_fw_mod_init(void) >> +{ >> + return driver_register(&rproc_tee_fw_driver.driver); >> +} >> + >> +static void __exit rproc_tee_fw_mod_exit(void) >> +{ >> + driver_unregister(&rproc_tee_fw_driver.driver); >> +} >> + >> +module_init(rproc_tee_fw_mod_init); >> +module_exit(rproc_tee_fw_mod_exit); > > Please add an equivalent of the module_platform_driver() macro to tee > framework instead of open-coding this. > It is not possible to use equivalent of the module_platform_driver() macro as the device is on the TEE bus. I followed recommendation provided in Documentation/driver-api/tee.rst[1] Or do you have an alternative in mind? Thanks, Arnaud [1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.14-rc6/source/Documentation/driver-api/tee.rst >> + >> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION(" remote processor TEE module"); >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> index 8fd0d7f63c8e..2e0ddcb2d792 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> @@ -503,6 +503,8 @@ enum rproc_features { >> RPROC_MAX_FEATURES, >> }; >> >> +struct rproc_tee; >> + >> /** >> * struct rproc - represents a physical remote processor device >> * @node: list node of this rproc object >> @@ -545,6 +547,7 @@ enum rproc_features { >> * @cdev: character device of the rproc >> * @cdev_put_on_release: flag to indicate if remoteproc should be shutdown >> on @char_dev release >> * @features: indicate remoteproc features >> + * @rproc_tee_itf: pointer to the remoteproc tee context >> */ >> struct rproc { >> struct list_head node; >> @@ -586,6 +589,7 @@ struct rproc { >> struct cdev cdev; >> bool cdev_put_on_release; >> DECLARE_BITMAP(features, RPROC_MAX_FEATURES); >> + struct rproc_tee *rproc_tee_itf; > > TEE is just one specific remoteproc implementation, why does it need to > infest the core data structure? Do you want a stm32_rproc here as well? > >> }; >> >> /** >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h b/include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..9b498a8eff4d >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ >> +/* >> + * Copyright(c) 2024 STMicroelectronics >> + */ >> + >> +#ifndef REMOTEPROC_TEE_H >> +#define REMOTEPROC_TEE_H >> + >> +#include <linux/tee_drv.h> >> +#include <linux/firmware.h> >> +#include <linux/remoteproc.h> >> + >> +struct rproc; >> + >> +/** >> + * struct rproc_tee - TEE remoteproc structure >> + * @node: Reference in list >> + * @rproc: Remoteproc reference >> + * @parent: Parent device > > Isn't that rproc->dev->parent? > >> + * @rproc_id: Identifier of the target firmware >> + * @session_id: TEE session identifier >> + */ >> +struct rproc_tee { > > As far as I can tell this isn't dereferenced outside remoteproc_tee.c, > can we hide it therein? > >> + struct list_head node; >> + struct rproc *rproc; >> + struct device *parent; >> + u32 rproc_id; >> + u32 session_id; >> +}; >> + >> +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_REMOTEPROC_TEE) >> + >> +int rproc_tee_register(struct device *dev, struct rproc *rproc, unsigned >> int rproc_id); >> +int rproc_tee_unregister(struct rproc *rproc); >> +int rproc_tee_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw); >> +int rproc_tee_load_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw); >> +void rproc_tee_release_fw(struct rproc *rproc); >> +struct resource_table *rproc_tee_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc, >> + const struct firmware >> *fw); >> +int rproc_tee_start(struct rproc *rproc); >> +int rproc_tee_stop(struct rproc *rproc); >> + >> +#else >> + > > Do we really need yet another bunch of stubs? Can't we just leave > CONFIG_REMOTEPROC_TEE non-user-selectable and have the drivers that rely > on it do "select REMOTEPROC_TEE"? > > If my measurements are correct, it's 3.1kB of code... > > Regards, > Bjorn > >> +static inline int rproc_tee_register(struct device *dev, struct rproc >> *rproc, unsigned int rproc_id) >> +{ >> + return -ENODEV; >> +} >> + >> +static inline int rproc_tee_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct >> firmware *fw) >> +{ >> + /* This shouldn't be possible */ >> + WARN_ON(1); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static inline int rproc_tee_unregister(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + /* This shouldn't be possible */ >> + WARN_ON(1); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static inline int rproc_tee_load_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct >> firmware *fw) >> +{ >> + /* This shouldn't be possible */ >> + WARN_ON(1); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static inline int rproc_tee_start(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + /* This shouldn't be possible */ >> + WARN_ON(1); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static inline int rproc_tee_stop(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + /* This shouldn't be possible */ >> + WARN_ON(1); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static inline void rproc_tee_release_fw(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + /* This shouldn't be possible */ >> + WARN_ON(1); >> +} >> + >> +static inline struct resource_table * >> +rproc_tee_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware >> *fw) >> +{ >> + /* This shouldn't be possible */ >> + WARN_ON(1); >> + >> + return NULL; >> +} >> +#endif /* CONFIG_REMOTEPROC_TEE */ >> +#endif /* REMOTEPROC_TEE_H */ >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> >
