Looks no more feedbacks. We will start creating it and call for review when finished.

Issue created for collecting comments: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T720

Thanks.

/Ken

From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:32 PM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] The veneer usage under library model (Ken Liu)

Hi Reinhard,

Thanks for your feedback, and let’s see if others would give more comments.

Will broadcast the implementation after it is created. Before that we need to know if some users (especially those developing secure partitions under library model) got comments on this.

Also, I think this update could help the first point in your list.

/Ken

From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Reinhard Keil via TF-M
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 2:57 PM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] [RFC] The veneer usage under library model (Ken Liu)

Ken,

This is the answer to “What do you think about this update?”

When external TF-M APIs do not change, there should be no user impact.  As the veneer is just an internal implementation of parameter passing, changing the veneer implementation would be just fine.

I made some suggestions here

https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2020-March/000805.html

I would be happy to review your implementation in case that you have doubts.

Best regards

Reinhard