- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Re: [TF-M] Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?)

by Rønningstad, Øyvind

I've created a proof of concept for allowing out-of-tree platforms here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7301 It was simpler than I had thought :) Øyvind From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 07:57 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?) Hi, In the ideal case with HAL API, the platform itself can decide which variant's layout to be applied, selected by build system switches or just some header files. Because SPM could get what it needed by HAL API run-time. It can be mostly done inside the platform folder if one platform has the variants management already. Others please give inputs as this is a very useful topic, we can list down the problem we met during integration first. BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Rønningstad, Øyvind via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 3:47 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: Rasmussen, Torsten <Torsten.Rasmussen(a)nordicsemi.no<mailto:Torsten.Rasmussen@nordicsemi.no>> Subject: [TF-M] Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?) Hi all In our work integrating TFM into Zephyr and the nRF Connect SDK, it's apparent that the integration would be a lot smoother if we could specify TFM's flash layout externally. Looking into it a bit, I came up with a draft proposal here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/pull/18/files<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> We could just modify our own platforms to this and be happy, but I'm wondering if there would be interest in standardizing something. Now, a related problem is: How can we make it easier to add multiple boards based on a single chip. For the Nordic platforms we've already separated the chip-specific code (nRF9160/nRF5340) from the board specific code (DK/PDK), and for the boards, it really boils down to pin configurations. We could allow to specify pins via Cmake instead, to easily allow users to support their production PCBs. But (this was brought up in the above PR) we can also solve both problems by adding support for out-of-tree platforms. For example, allow TFM to be built like so: cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=../../../../my_custom_board ... This would probably be less work that designing a new interface for overriding flash layouts and pin configurations. What are your thoughts? BR, Øyvind Rønningstad

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Review request for adding External Trusted Secure Storage service in TF-M

by Edward Yang

Hi everyone, Please help review the following design proposal of adding External Trusted Secure Storage service in TF-M,any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7295 Best Regards, Poppy Wu Macronix Microelectronics (Suzhou) Co.,Ltd http://www.mxic.com.cn ======================================================== ============================================================================ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Macronix International Co., Ltd. =====================================================================

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Review request for adding External Trusted Secure Storage service in TF-M

by Edward Yang

Hi everyone, Please help review the following design proposal of adding External Trusted Secure Storage service in TF-M,any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7295 Best Regards, Poppy Wu Macronix Microelectronics (Suzhou) Co.,Ltd http://www.mxic.com.cn ======================================================== ============================================================================ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Macronix International Co., Ltd. =====================================================================

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Deprecation of platform MPS2/SSE-200_AWS

by Marton Berke

Hi Everyone, I would like to propose the deprecation of platform MPS2/SSE-200_AWS because the platform is no longer available to use: https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/ARM-Ltd-DesignStart-FPGA-on-Cloud-Cor… As per the process, this proposal is open for discussion for a period of 4 weeks and if there are no major objections, the platform should be marked as deprecated and removed from TF-M master after next release. Thanks and Best regards, Marton Berke

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26

by Karl Zhang

Hi Anton I would have an introduction to TF-M openCI. Thanks Karl ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of David Hu via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:10 PM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26 Hi Anton, I’d like to share a proposal to improve dual-cpu mailbox. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:59 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 26 at 15:00-16:00 GMT (US friendly time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton

5 years, 1 month

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] gcc compiler requirement documentation

by Shawn Shan

Hi Chris, Thanks for point out this. Here is the fix: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7226 Regards, Shawn From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 2:55 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] gcc compiler requirement documentation Looking at docs/getting_started//tfm_sw_requirement.rst it says that the version requirement for gcc is "GNU Arm compiler v7.3.1+". then it describes where to get that toolchain, but in that section the two versions it suggests are "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 6-2017-q1-update" and "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 7-2018-q2-update". The former is gcc version 6.3.1, which doesn't actually meet the requirements. Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?)

by Ken Liu

Hi, In the ideal case with HAL API, the platform itself can decide which variant's layout to be applied, selected by build system switches or just some header files. Because SPM could get what it needed by HAL API run-time. It can be mostly done inside the platform folder if one platform has the variants management already. Others please give inputs as this is a very useful topic, we can list down the problem we met during integration first. BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Rønningstad, Øyvind via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 3:47 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Rasmussen, Torsten <Torsten.Rasmussen(a)nordicsemi.no> Subject: [TF-M] Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?) Hi all In our work integrating TFM into Zephyr and the nRF Connect SDK, it's apparent that the integration would be a lot smoother if we could specify TFM's flash layout externally. Looking into it a bit, I came up with a draft proposal here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/pull/18/files We could just modify our own platforms to this and be happy, but I'm wondering if there would be interest in standardizing something. Now, a related problem is: How can we make it easier to add multiple boards based on a single chip. For the Nordic platforms we've already separated the chip-specific code (nRF9160/nRF5340) from the board specific code (DK/PDK), and for the boards, it really boils down to pin configurations. We could allow to specify pins via Cmake instead, to easily allow users to support their production PCBs. But (this was brought up in the above PR) we can also solve both problems by adding support for out-of-tree platforms. For example, allow TFM to be built like so: cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=../../../../my_custom_board ... This would probably be less work that designing a new interface for overriding flash layouts and pin configurations. What are your thoughts? BR, Øyvind Rønningstad

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?)

by Rønningstad, Øyvind

Hi all In our work integrating TFM into Zephyr and the nRF Connect SDK, it's apparent that the integration would be a lot smoother if we could specify TFM's flash layout externally. Looking into it a bit, I came up with a draft proposal here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/pull/18/files We could just modify our own platforms to this and be happy, but I'm wondering if there would be interest in standardizing something. Now, a related problem is: How can we make it easier to add multiple boards based on a single chip. For the Nordic platforms we've already separated the chip-specific code (nRF9160/nRF5340) from the board specific code (DK/PDK), and for the boards, it really boils down to pin configurations. We could allow to specify pins via Cmake instead, to easily allow users to support their production PCBs. But (this was brought up in the above PR) we can also solve both problems by adding support for out-of-tree platforms. For example, allow TFM to be built like so: cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=../../../../my_custom_board ... This would probably be less work that designing a new interface for overriding flash layouts and pin configurations. What are your thoughts? BR, Øyvind Rønningstad

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

gcc compiler requirement documentation

by Christopher Brand

Looking at docs/getting_started//tfm_sw_requirement.rst it says that the version requirement for gcc is "GNU Arm compiler v7.3.1+". then it describes where to get that toolchain, but in that section the two versions it suggests are "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 6-2017-q1-update" and "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 7-2018-q2-update". The former is gcc version 6.3.1, which doesn't actually meet the requirements. Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong

by Tamas Ban

Hi Thomas, Here is the fix: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7196 Actually since the CMake refactor the default value can be overridden from the command line, so it is possible to enable the logging even in Release builds. BR Tamas -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 2020. november 25., szerda 8:50 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong The description of how to set MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL in tfm_secure_boot.rst appears wrong, or at least unclear. --- - MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL: Can be used to configure the level of logging in MCUBoot. The possible values are the following: - **LOG_LEVEL_OFF** - **LOG_LEVEL_ERROR** - **LOG_LEVEL_WARNING** - **LOG_LEVEL_INFO** - **LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG** The logging in MCUBoot can be disabled and thus the code size can be reduced by setting it to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF``. Its value depends on the build type. If the build type is ``Debug`` and a value has been provided (e.g. through the command line or the CMake GUI) then that value will be used, otherwise it is ``LOG_LEVEL_INFO`` by default. In case of different kinds of ``Release`` builds its value is set to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF`` (any other value will be overridden). --- I tried enabling MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG by adding -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG to the cmake command line, but that set the level to -1. I also tried -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=4, which also set it to -1. I then noticed that the default setting in CMakeCache.txt is "MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL:STRING=INFO", so I instead used -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=DEBUG, which worked. I would also like to be able to use logging for Release builds, as this may assist chasing down optimization issues. Thomas -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M