[TF-M] Re: What do you think using configuration headers in TF-M ?

Hi Anton,

The proposal to "Configure TF-M via definitions in header files while leave CMake for a building control only" is highly wanted from very beginning, it can save a lot of time for us.

Thank you,

Andrej Butok

From: Anton Komlev via TF-M tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 3:22 PM To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd nd@arm.com Subject: [TF-M] What do you think using configuration headers in TF-M ?

Hello,

TF-M has many options to configure. All of them are declared as a CMake variables and many of them translated to compiler definitions later.

Since the idea of TF-M configuration via config header file(s) was warmly received on the last tech forum I would like to check with community opinion on such hypothetical move: Configure TF-M via definitions in header files while leave CMake for a building control only.

Please share your thoughts, opinions and the possible dependencies.

Thanks,

Anton