On 6/17/25 06:34, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:55:26AM +0200, 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 the secure part, this driver offers a client interface to load firmware >> by the secure part. >> This firmware could be authenticated by the secure trusted application. >> >> A specificity of the implementation is that the firmware has to be
[...] > >> + } >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_release_fw); >> + >> +/** >> + * rproc_tee_load_fw - Load firmware from TEE application >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * @fw: Pointer to the firmware structure containing the firmware data and >> size >> + * >> + * This function invokes the TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_LOAD_FW TEE client function to >> load the firmware. >> + * It registers the fw->data as a shared memory region with the TEE, and >> request the TEE to load >> + * the firmware. This function can be called twice during the remote >> processor boot, considering >> + * that the TEE application ignores the command if the firmware is already >> loaded. > > "can be called twice"? How does this relate to the TEE application > ignoring the command? How does the client know if the application > ignored it? No need that the client is aware. only needed due to the boot sequence that calls rproc_tee_parse_fw() then the rproc_tee_load_fw() I will update the comment to make it more explicit. > >> + * >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * @fw: Pointer to the firmware structure containing the firmware data and >> size > > https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#function-documentation > says function name should have () suffix. Then arguments (here you have > them twice). Then the longer description (for rproc_tee_release_fw() you > have this before arguments). > > Also, please keep it within 80 characters. > >> + * >> + * Return: 0 on success, or an error code on failure >> + */ >> +int rproc_tee_load_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> +{ >> + struct tee_param param[MAX_TEE_PARAM_ARRAY_MEMBER]; >> + struct rproc_tee *trproc = rproc_to_trproc(rproc); >> + struct tee_ioctl_invoke_arg arg; >> + struct tee_shm *fw_shm; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (!rproc_tee_ctx.dev) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + if (!trproc) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + fw_shm = tee_shm_register_kernel_buf(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, (void >> *)fw->data, fw->size); >> + if (IS_ERR(fw_shm)) >> + return PTR_ERR(fw_shm); >> + >> + rproc_tee_prepare_args(trproc, TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_LOAD_FW, &arg, param, 1); >> + >> + /* Provide the address of the firmware image */ >> + param[1] = (struct tee_param) { >> + .attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_MEMREF_INPUT, >> + .u.memref = { >> + .shm = fw_shm, >> + .size = fw->size, >> + .shm_offs = 0, >> + }, >> + }; >> + >> + ret = tee_client_invoke_func(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, &arg, param); >> + if (ret < 0 || arg.ret != 0) { >> + dev_err(rproc_tee_ctx.dev, >> + "TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_LOAD_FW invoke failed TEE err: %#x, >> ret:%d\n", >> + arg.ret, ret); >> + if (!ret) >> + ret = -EIO; > > If ret == 0 and arg.ret == <some error>, then this function will print > an error to the log and return success (0). Same with many of the other > functions where you have copy pasted this. If ret == 0 and arg.ret == <some error>, we return -EIO, or I missed something? > >> + } >> + >> + tee_shm_free(fw_shm); >> + >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_load_fw); >> + >> +static int rproc_tee_get_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc, phys_addr_t >> *rsc_pa, >> + size_t *table_sz) >> +{ >> + struct tee_param param[MAX_TEE_PARAM_ARRAY_MEMBER]; >> + struct rproc_tee *trproc = rproc_to_trproc(rproc); >> + struct tee_ioctl_invoke_arg arg; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (!rproc_tee_ctx.dev) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + if (!trproc) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + rproc_tee_prepare_args(trproc, TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_GET_RSC_TABLE, &arg, >> param, 2); >> + >> + param[1].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_OUTPUT; >> + param[2].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_OUTPUT; >> + >> + ret = tee_client_invoke_func(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, &arg, param); >> + if (ret < 0 || arg.ret != 0) { >> + dev_err(rproc_tee_ctx.dev, >> + "TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_GET_RSC_TABLE invoke failed TEE err: >> %#x, ret:%d\n", >> + arg.ret, ret); >> + return -EIO; >> + } >> + >> + *table_sz = param[2].u.value.a; > > What happened to .b? Not really used for now, but I will add extra code to support addresses and size in 64-bits testing the sizeof phys_addr_t and size_t. > >> + >> + if (*table_sz) >> + *rsc_pa = param[1].u.value.a; > > Ditto > >> + else >> + *rsc_pa = 0; >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +/** >> + * rproc_tee_parse_fw - Get the resource table from TEE application >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * @fw: Pointer to the firmware structure containing the firmware data and >> size >> + * >> + * This function retrieves the loaded resource table and creates a >> cached_table copy. Since the >> + * firmware image is signed and potentially encrypted, the firmware must be >> loaded first to >> + * access the loaded resource table. >> + * >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * @fw: Pointer to the firmware structure containing the firmware data and >> size > > Duplicated arguments list... > >> + * >> + * Return: 0 on success, or an error code on failure >> + */ >> +int rproc_tee_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> +{ >> + phys_addr_t rsc_table; >> + void __iomem *rsc_va; >> + size_t table_sz; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (!rproc) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + /* We need first to Load the firmware, to be able to get the resource >> table. */ >> + ret = rproc_tee_load_fw(rproc, fw); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; >> + >> + ret = rproc_tee_get_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, &rsc_table, &table_sz); >> + if (ret) >> + goto release_fw; >> + >> + /* >> + * We assume here that the memory mapping is the same between the TEE >> and Linux kernel >> + * contexts. Else a new TEE remoteproc service could be needed to get a >> copy of the >> + * resource table >> + */ >> + rsc_va = ioremap_wc(rsc_table, table_sz); > > You're using tee_shm for transferring the image, you don't allow Linux > access to any part of the firmware (which is the reason why you need to > load the segments in rproc_parse_fw())... Right, Linux does not understand the format and could not retrieve the resource table in case of encryption. > > So just out of curiosity, why is the resource table passed back to Linux > using a ioremap of some random/undefined chunk of memory? It is not a random chunck of memory but the address of the table installed in the remote processor memory. It is the equivalent of get_loaded_rsc_table ops. > >> + if (!rsc_va) { >> + dev_err(rproc_tee_ctx.dev, "Unable to map memory region: >> %pa+%zx\n", >> + &rsc_table, table_sz); >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto release_fw; >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * Create a copy of the resource table to have the same behavior as the >> ELF loader. >> + * This cached table will be used by the remoteproc core after the >> remoteproc stops >> + * to free resources and for crash recovery to reapply the settings. >> + * The cached table will be freed by the remoteproc core. >> + */ >> + rproc->cached_table = kmemdup((__force void *)rsc_va, table_sz, >> GFP_KERNEL); > > Is rsc_va DDR? And if so, wouldn't memremap() be a more accurate choice > above. If not, why isn't this kzalloc() + memcpy_fromio()? Here we explicitly want to make a local copy as done in rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(). using kzalloc() + memcpy_fromio() seems a better implementation I test your proposal, thanks > >> + iounmap(rsc_va); >> + >> + if (!rproc->cached_table) { >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto release_fw; >> + } >> + >> + rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table; >> + rproc->table_sz = table_sz; >> + >> + return 0; >> + >> +release_fw: >> + rproc_tee_release_fw(rproc); >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_parse_fw); >> + >> +/** >> + * rproc_tee_find_loaded_rsc_table - Find the loaded resource table loaded >> by the TEE application >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * @fw: Pointer to the firmware structure containing the firmware data and >> size >> + * >> + * This function retrieves the physical address and size of the resource >> table loaded by the TEE >> + * application. >> + * >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * @fw: Pointer to the firmware structure containing the firmware data and >> size > > More argument duplication. > >> + * >> + * Return: pointer to the resource table if found, or NULL if not found or >> size is 0 >> + */ >> +struct resource_table *rproc_tee_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc, >> + const struct firmware >> *fw) >> +{ >> + phys_addr_t rsc_table; >> + size_t table_sz; >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = rproc_tee_get_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, &rsc_table, &table_sz); >> + if (ret) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + rproc->table_sz = table_sz; >> + if (!table_sz) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + /* >> + * At this step the memory area that contains the resource table should >> have been registered >> + * by the remote proc platform driver and allocated by >> rproc_alloc_registered_carveouts(). >> + */ >> + return (struct resource_table *)rproc_pa_to_va(rproc, rsc_table, >> table_sz, NULL); > > rproc_pa_to_va() return type is void *, do you really need this explicit > typecast? > >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_find_loaded_rsc_table); >> + >> +/** >> + * rproc_tee_start - Request the TEE application to start the remote >> processor >> + * >> + * This function invokes the TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_START command to start the >> remote processor. >> + * >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor > > kernel-doc ordering... > >> + * >> + * Return: Returns 0 on success, -EINVAL or -EIO on failure >> + */ >> +int rproc_tee_start(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + struct tee_param param[MAX_TEE_PARAM_ARRAY_MEMBER]; >> + struct rproc_tee *trproc = rproc_to_trproc(rproc); >> + struct tee_ioctl_invoke_arg arg; >> + int ret = 0; > > First access of ret is an assignment, no need to zero-initialize it > here. > >> + >> + if (!trproc) >> + return -EINVAL; > > There's an inconsistency in that rproc_tee_ctx.dev is used without first > checking that it's valid in this function... > >> + >> + rproc_tee_prepare_args(trproc, TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_START, &arg, param, 0); >> + >> + ret = tee_client_invoke_func(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, &arg, param); >> + if (ret < 0 || arg.ret != 0) { >> + dev_err(rproc_tee_ctx.dev, >> + "TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_START invoke failed TEE err: %#x, >> ret:%d\n", arg.ret, ret); >> + if (!ret) >> + return -EIO; > > Why not assigning ret and falling through, like in most other functions? > >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_start); >> + >> +/** >> + * rproc_tee_stop - Request the TEE application to start the remote >> processor >> + * >> + * This function invokes the TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_STOP command to stop the >> remote processor. >> + * >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * >> + * Return: Returns 0 on success, -EINVAL or -EIO on failure >> + */ >> +int rproc_tee_stop(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + struct tee_param param[MAX_TEE_PARAM_ARRAY_MEMBER]; >> + struct rproc_tee *trproc = rproc_to_trproc(rproc); >> + struct tee_ioctl_invoke_arg arg; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (!trproc) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + rproc_tee_prepare_args(trproc, TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_STOP, &arg, param, 0); >> + >> + ret = tee_client_invoke_func(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, &arg, param); >> + if (ret < 0 || arg.ret != 0) { >> + dev_err(rproc_tee_ctx.dev, >> + "TA_RPROC_FW_CMD_STOP invoke failed TEE err: %#x, >> ret:%d\n", arg.ret, ret); >> + if (!ret) >> + ret = -EIO; >> + } >> + >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_stop); >> + >> +static const struct tee_client_device_id rproc_tee_id_table[] = { >> + {UUID_INIT(0x80a4c275, 0x0a47, 0x4905, 0x82, 0x85, 0x14, 0x86, 0xa9, >> 0x77, 0x1a, 0x08)}, >> + {} >> +}; >> + >> +/** >> + * rproc_tee_register - Register a remote processor controlled by a TEE >> application. >> + * >> + * This function registers a remote processor that will be managed by a TEE >> application,by opening >> + * a session with the TEE client. >> + * >> + * @dev: Pointer to client rproc device >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * @rproc_id: ID of the remote processor >> + * >> + * Return: Returns 0 on success, or an error code on failure >> + */ >> +int rproc_tee_register(struct device *dev, struct rproc *rproc, unsigned >> int rproc_id) >> +{ >> + struct tee_param param[MAX_TEE_PARAM_ARRAY_MEMBER]; >> + struct tee_ioctl_open_session_arg sess_arg; >> + struct tee_client_device *tee_device; >> + struct rproc_tee *trproc; >> + struct device_link *link; >> + int ret; >> + >> + spin_lock(&ctx_lock); > > Why is this a spin_lock? > > To my understanding the purpose of ctx_lock is to ensure mutual > exclusion of access to rproc_tee_ctx, but this doesn't look like it's > done from a context that isn't able to tolerate a mutex. > > In particular during boot, if you have multiple remoteprocs being > registred, you're going to waste precious CPU cycles just spinning here. > > > And if it is a spinlock because you might enter here from some interrupt > context, how do you ensure this won't deadlock? Right I need to use mutex instead and beter protect all the API from concurrent access to better manage bind/unbind. > >> + /* >> + * Test if the device has been probed by the TEE bus. In case of >> failure, we ignore the >> + * reason. The bus could be not yet probed or the service not available >> in the secure >> + * firmware.The assumption in such a case is that the TEE remoteproc is >> not probed. >> + */ >> + if (!rproc_tee_ctx.dev) { >> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + trproc = kzalloc(sizeof(*trproc), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!trproc) { >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + tee_device = to_tee_client_device(rproc_tee_ctx.dev); >> + memset(&sess_arg, 0, sizeof(sess_arg)); >> + >> + memcpy(sess_arg.uuid, tee_device->id.uuid.b, TEE_IOCTL_UUID_LEN); >> + >> + sess_arg.clnt_login = TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_REE_KERNEL; >> + sess_arg.num_params = 1; >> + >> + param[0] = (struct tee_param) { >> + .attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT, >> + .u.value.a = rproc_id, >> + }; > > I'm not familiar with the details of the tee calling convention, but do > you really need 4 entries in the param array and if so, would it make > sense to zero-initialize the other elements - like you do in all other > functions? In rproc_tee_prepare_args(), we reinitialize the arguments and parameters because they may be reused from a previous message. This allow to set only non zero value. THere as sess_arg.num_params = 1 only param[0] is valid, other param should be ignored. In this context use memeset seems over protection here. Thanks, Arnaud > >> + >> + ret = tee_client_open_session(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, &sess_arg, param); >> + if (ret < 0 || sess_arg.ret != 0) { >> + dev_err(dev, "tee_client_open_session failed, err: %#x\n", >> sess_arg.ret); >> + ret = -EINVAL; >> + goto free_tproc; >> + } >> + >> + trproc->rproc_id = rproc_id; >> + trproc->session_id = sess_arg.session; >> + >> + trproc->rproc = rproc; >> + >> + /* Create device link between the rproc device and the TEE device */ > > This comment would be more useful if it documented why the link is > created - the fact that a link is added between the two devices can be > read on the next line... > >> + link = device_link_add(dev, rproc_tee_ctx.dev, >> DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER); >> + if (!link) { >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto close_tee; >> + } >> + list_add_tail(&trproc->node, &rproc_tee_ctx.sessions); >> + >> + goto out; > > Please don't use goto to skip over the error handling. ret is going to > be 0 here, so unlock and return 0 here to make it clear that this is the > point of successful return. > >> + >> +close_tee: >> + if (tee_client_close_session(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, trproc->session_id)) >> + dev_err(rproc_tee_ctx.dev, "tee_client_close_session failed\n"); >> +free_tproc: >> + kfree(trproc); >> +out: >> + spin_unlock(&ctx_lock); >> + >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_register); >> + >> +/** >> + * rproc_tee_unregister - Register a remote processor controlled by a TEE >> application. >> + * >> + * This function unregisters a remote processor previously registered by >> the rproc_tee_register() >> + * function. >> + * >> + * @dev: Pointer to client rproc device >> + * @rproc: Pointer to the struct rproc representing the remote processor >> + * >> + * Return: Returns 0 on success, or an error code on failure >> + */ >> +int rproc_tee_unregister(struct device *dev, struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + struct rproc_tee *trproc = rproc_to_trproc(rproc); >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (!trproc) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + spin_lock(&ctx_lock); > > This lock is taken after you have traversed the rproc_tee_ctx.session > list in a racy fashion. > >> + >> + ret = tee_client_close_session(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx, >> trproc->session_id); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + dev_err(rproc_tee_ctx.dev, "tee_client_close_session failed, >> err: %#x\n", ret); >> + >> + spin_unlock(&ctx_lock); >> + >> + list_del(&trproc->node); > > Although, I might misunderstand your locking scheme, because here you're > modifying the sessions list immediately after leaving the mutual > exclusion region? > >> + kfree(trproc); >> + >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rproc_tee_unregister); >> + >> +static int rproc_tee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const >> void *data) >> +{ >> + /* Today we support only the OP-TEE, could be extend to other tees */ >> + return (ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE); >> +} >> + >> +static int rproc_tee_probe(struct device *dev) >> +{ >> + struct tee_context *tee_ctx; >> + >> + /* Open context with TEE driver */ >> + tee_ctx = tee_client_open_context(NULL, rproc_tee_ctx_match, NULL, >> NULL); >> + if (IS_ERR(tee_ctx)) >> + return PTR_ERR(tee_ctx); >> + >> + spin_lock(&ctx_lock); >> + rproc_tee_ctx.dev = dev; >> + rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx = tee_ctx; >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rproc_tee_ctx.sessions); >> + spin_unlock(&ctx_lock); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static int rproc_tee_remove(struct device *dev) >> +{ >> + spin_lock(&ctx_lock); >> + tee_client_close_context(rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx); >> + rproc_tee_ctx.dev = NULL; >> + rproc_tee_ctx.tee_ctx = NULL; >> + spin_unlock(&ctx_lock); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +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); >> + >> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION(" remote processor TEE module"); > > Why is there a space in the start of the description? > >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h b/include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..659bd77a4f12 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc_tee.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ >> +/* >> + * Copyright(c) 2024 STMicroelectronics > > Year? > >> + */ >> + >> +#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; > > rproc_tee is not used in the API, so there shouldn't be a need for > forward declaring it. > > struct rproc is defined in linux/remoteproc.h, so that should be fine to > omit as well. > >> + >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REMOTEPROC_TEE) >> + >> +int rproc_tee_register(struct device *dev, struct rproc *rproc, unsigned >> int rproc_id); >> +int rproc_tee_unregister(struct device *dev, 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 >> + >> +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 device *dev, 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) > > Double space after the ',' > > Regards, > Bjorn > >> +{ >> + /* 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 >>
