Hi Ard,
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:29 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 09:04, Jens Wiklander jens.wiklander@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.wang_1@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?
{ },+}; +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.
+#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?
My understanding is to get it done by feeding .acpi_match_table with something, right?
Regards, Ran