Hi Michel,
Apologies, somehow my response yesterday got lost, so here it goes again:
I re-read the documentation and the way you use this macro seems to be valid when targeting v8-M based chips.
I see two solutions for your problem:
1. I created a ticket to remove the --mcmse compile flag for non-secure projects. See: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T304 After this is fixed, your current code will work as expected.
2. Currently TF-M uses the __DOMAIN_NS macro to define the target domain for the source-code. It is an option to change your code to use this macro. I suggest going for this option if your code is not v8-M specific, and may need to support other architectures in the future.
/George
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Antonio De Angelis via TF-M
Sent: 03 April 2019 17:40
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] build of NSPE with flag __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE=3
Hi Michel,
A ticket has been raised by Gyorgy to track this:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T304
Thanks,
Antonio
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Michel JAOUEN via TF-M
Sent: 03 April 2019 03:03
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] build of NSPE with flag __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE=3
Hello,
The flag is defined to __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U.
In documentation, I can read :
__ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U when Toolchain targets the secure state of CMSE (implies the availability of the TT instruction).
My soc files relies on this flag to select by default a secure peripheral register address or a non secure peripheral address.
With the non secure compiled with __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U , by default secure peripheral address are selected.
Is it a correct usage to build NSPE with __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U ?
Best regards
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Hi Michel,
We will pick up this and try to push a patch to fix it soon.
Hi Alan,
Thanks for your workaround, and it is very helpful. We will update the T234 as soon as possible after the patch ready.
Thanks,
Edison
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of DeMars, Alan via TF-M
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 9:32 PM
To: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com>
Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
I assumed there was an outstanding pull request for this ticket:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T234
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 6:59 PM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
Hi Alan,
Is it OK for you to commit this change?
-Ken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of
> DeMars, Alan via TF-M
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 5:50 AM
> To: Michel JAOUEN <michel.jaouen(a)st.com>
> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: Re: [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
>
> I had a similar problem. Upon advice in this email list, I fixed it by
> changing the implementation of "tfm_core_ns_ipc_request()" in
> secure_fw/core/tfm_psa_api_client.c.
>
> Add 'volatile' to the declaration of these variables:
>
> struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
>
> change to:
>
> volatile struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
>
> After this change, I am able to build and run with -O3 as well as -Os.
>
> I don't know why this fix hasn't been added to the master branch as
> this problem has already been identified.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf
> Of Michel JAOUEN via TF-M
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 4:11 AM
> To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
>
> Hello,
> I tested my board port on top of
> 1c266ae74bd93c2ef290e9aac0caecf92b06b93d
> Without option -Os , the tests with ConfigCoreIPC.cmake are passed .
> When I put the option -Os , 1st test is failing in Hardware Fault.
>
> For info, the test with ConfigRegression.cmake and option -Os is passed .
>
> With the configuration -Os , code footprint is much better.
>
> Is it plan to activate this option in master ? Is the same issue
> reproduced on another board ?
>
> Best regards
>
> --
> TF-M mailing list
> TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
> --
> TF-M mailing list
> TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Hi Michel,
A ticket has been raised by Gyorgy to track this:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T304
Thanks,
Antonio
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Michel JAOUEN via TF-M
Sent: 03 April 2019 03:03
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] build of NSPE with flag __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE=3
Hello,
The flag is defined to __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U.
In documentation, I can read :
__ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U when Toolchain targets the secure state of CMSE (implies the availability of the TT instruction).
My soc files relies on this flag to select by default a secure peripheral register address or a non secure peripheral address.
With the non secure compiled with __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U , by default secure peripheral address are selected.
Is it a correct usage to build NSPE with __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U ?
Best regards
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
I assumed there was an outstanding pull request for this ticket:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T234
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 6:59 PM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
Hi Alan,
Is it OK for you to commit this change?
-Ken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of DeMars,
> Alan via TF-M
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 5:50 AM
> To: Michel JAOUEN <michel.jaouen(a)st.com>
> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: Re: [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
>
> I had a similar problem. Upon advice in this email list, I fixed it by changing the
> implementation of "tfm_core_ns_ipc_request()" in
> secure_fw/core/tfm_psa_api_client.c.
>
> Add 'volatile' to the declaration of these variables:
>
> struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
>
> change to:
>
> volatile struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
>
> After this change, I am able to build and run with -O3 as well as -Os.
>
> I don't know why this fix hasn't been added to the master branch as this problem
> has already been identified.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of
> Michel JAOUEN via TF-M
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 4:11 AM
> To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
>
> Hello,
> I tested my board port on top of
> 1c266ae74bd93c2ef290e9aac0caecf92b06b93d
> Without option -Os , the tests with ConfigCoreIPC.cmake are passed .
> When I put the option -Os , 1st test is failing in Hardware Fault.
>
> For info, the test with ConfigRegression.cmake and option -Os is passed .
>
> With the configuration -Os , code footprint is much better.
>
> Is it plan to activate this option in master ? Is the same issue reproduced on
> another board ?
>
> Best regards
>
> --
> TF-M mailing list
> TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
> --
> TF-M mailing list
> TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Hello,
The flag is defined to __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U.
In documentation, I can read :
__ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U when Toolchain targets the secure state of CMSE (implies the availability of the TT instruction).
My soc files relies on this flag to select by default a secure peripheral register address or a non secure peripheral address.
With the non secure compiled with __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U , by default secure peripheral address are selected.
Is it a correct usage to build NSPE with __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE == 3U ?
Best regards
Hi Alan,
Is it OK for you to commit this change?
-Ken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of DeMars,
> Alan via TF-M
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 5:50 AM
> To: Michel JAOUEN <michel.jaouen(a)st.com>
> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: Re: [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
>
> I had a similar problem. Upon advice in this email list, I fixed it by changing the
> implementation of "tfm_core_ns_ipc_request()" in
> secure_fw/core/tfm_psa_api_client.c.
>
> Add 'volatile' to the declaration of these variables:
>
> struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
>
> change to:
>
> volatile struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
>
> After this change, I am able to build and run with -O3 as well as -Os.
>
> I don't know why this fix hasn't been added to the master branch as this problem
> has already been identified.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of
> Michel JAOUEN via TF-M
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 4:11 AM
> To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
>
> Hello,
> I tested my board port on top of
> 1c266ae74bd93c2ef290e9aac0caecf92b06b93d
> Without option -Os , the tests with ConfigCoreIPC.cmake are passed .
> When I put the option -Os , 1st test is failing in Hardware Fault.
>
> For info, the test with ConfigRegression.cmake and option -Os is passed .
>
> With the configuration -Os , code footprint is much better.
>
> Is it plan to activate this option in master ? Is the same issue reproduced on
> another board ?
>
> Best regards
>
> --
> TF-M mailing list
> TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
> --
> TF-M mailing list
> TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
I had a similar problem. Upon advice in this email list, I fixed it by changing the implementation of "tfm_core_ns_ipc_request()" in secure_fw/core/tfm_psa_api_client.c.
Add 'volatile' to the declaration of these variables:
struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
change to:
volatile struct tfm_sfn_req_s desc, *desc_ptr = &desc;
After this change, I am able to build and run with -O3 as well as -Os.
I don't know why this fix hasn't been added to the master branch as this problem has already been identified.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Michel JAOUEN via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 4:11 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TF-M] build with GNUARM with option -Os
Hello,
I tested my board port on top of 1c266ae74bd93c2ef290e9aac0caecf92b06b93d
Without option -Os , the tests with ConfigCoreIPC.cmake are passed .
When I put the option -Os , 1st test is failing in Hardware Fault.
For info, the test with ConfigRegression.cmake and option -Os is passed .
With the configuration -Os , code footprint is much better.
Is it plan to activate this option in master ? Is the same issue reproduced on another board ?
Best regards
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Hello,
I tested my board port on top of 1c266ae74bd93c2ef290e9aac0caecf92b06b93d
Without option -Os , the tests with ConfigCoreIPC.cmake are passed .
When I put the option -Os , 1st test is failing in Hardware Fault.
For info, the test with ConfigRegression.cmake and option -Os is passed .
With the configuration -Os , code footprint is much better.
Is it plan to activate this option in master ? Is the same issue reproduced on another board ?
Best regards
Hi Antonio,
Ok, so the TFM is using the old API.
Hope, it will be updated soon. I prefer do not downgrade the test suite from master, as it contains >50 of new commits.
Thanks,
Andrej
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Antonio De Angelis via TF-M
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 11:24 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] PSA Test Suite forum?
Hi Andrej,
I have replied on the GitHub issue as well, copy-pasting my reply below:
TF-M uses a version of the API which is marked 0.1.0b. The psa-arch-tests, on the master branch, have moved to use a newer version of the API, while on the branch marked ew_beta0 they use the version of the API compatible with the one TF-M uses, hence TF-M PSA API compliance needs to be tests using the ew_beta0 branch. Work is ongoing on TF-M side to move to newer versions of the API.
Thanks,
Antonio
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Qixiang Xu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M
Sent: 01 April 2019 09:14
To: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com>
Cc: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-M] PSA Test Suite forum?
Andrej,
Yes, the PSA test suite was developed by different team.
If it is a common topic, you can report the issue at any of the site, then we will sync it internal.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Qixiang Xu
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 3:59 PM
To: Qixiang Xu (Arm Technology China) <Qixiang.Xu(a)arm.com>
Cc: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: PSA Test Suite forum?
Hi Qixiang Xu,
I have added https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…
Not sure, what forum to use if it is a common topic related to both TFM and Test-suite. Is the PSA test suite developed by other independent team?
Thanks,
Andrej
-----Original Message-----
From: Qixiang Xu (Arm Technology China) <Qixiang.Xu(a)arm.com>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 9:41 AM
To: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com>
Cc: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: PSA Test Suite forum?
Andrej,
You can report any issue or concern at:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…
Best Regards,
Qixiang Xu
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 3:29 PM
To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] PSA Test Suite forum?
Hello,
Do you have a forum dedicated to the PSA Test-suite (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co… )?
Or we may use this one?
Thanks
Andrej
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru…
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru…
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru…
