Re: [TF-M] [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi Ken,
One of the most well working part of CMSIS is the compiler abstraction layer:
* It does wat is needed. * Most functionality can not be coded in a different way (i.e. intrinsics). * It became a de-facto standard and most compilers support it.
What are the benefits driving re-implementation?
/George
From: TF-M tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: 27 May 2020 02:39 To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd nd@arm.com Subject: Re: [TF-M] [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi Jamie,
At the current stage:
* The CMSIS headers dependency has been moved into HAL, the SPM native code would not rely on specific system provided definitions. * These usages are quite TF-M specific and small so there is less significance to upstream back, we can revisit if need to do this after extended the header content - but this extending is out of original design expectation.
BR
/Ken
From: Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox@arm.commailto:Jamie.Fox@arm.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:52 PM To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu@arm.commailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com>; tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd@arm.commailto:nd@arm.com> Subject: RE: [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi Ken,
Many similar abstractions for compiler C language extensions are provided by cmsis_compiler.h, already copied into the TF-M code base. If it does not meet all of our needs, should we consider proposing improvements to the upstream CMSIS project?
Kind regards, Jamie
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: 25 May 2020 05:02 To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd@arm.commailto:nd@arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi,
We created a proposal to define a minimal set of compiler specific-definitions for SPM. The reason is to avoid many #ifdef inside SPM code.
Only limited definitions are defined. Platform sources need to use platform defined headers for these definitions, such as CMSIS headers.
Special usage such as 'weak' or 'noreturn' are forbidden inside SPM.
Please put comments for this change: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4211
Or reply here.
This is just an example patch, the follow up would apply this defined headers to all SPM sources.
Thanks
/Ken
Hi Gyorgy,
With this implementation, the SPM module can rely on toolchain only, instead of -I<CMSIS_INC>.
This implementation is for assembler-specific so it is tiny, while CMSIS does not provide some necessary wrapper (such as the "syntax unified").
Thanks.
/Ken
From: Gyorgy Szing Gyorgy.Szing@arm.com Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:45 PM To: Ken Liu Ken.Liu@arm.com; tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd nd@arm.com; nd nd@arm.com Subject: RE: [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi Ken,
One of the most well working part of CMSIS is the compiler abstraction layer:
* It does wat is needed. * Most functionality can not be coded in a different way (i.e. intrinsics). * It became a de-facto standard and most compilers support it.
What are the benefits driving re-implementation?
/George
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: 27 May 2020 02:39 To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd@arm.commailto:nd@arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi Jamie,
At the current stage:
* The CMSIS headers dependency has been moved into HAL, the SPM native code would not rely on specific system provided definitions. * These usages are quite TF-M specific and small so there is less significance to upstream back, we can revisit if need to do this after extended the header content - but this extending is out of original design expectation.
BR
/Ken
From: Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox@arm.commailto:Jamie.Fox@arm.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:52 PM To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu@arm.commailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com>; tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd@arm.commailto:nd@arm.com> Subject: RE: [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi Ken,
Many similar abstractions for compiler C language extensions are provided by cmsis_compiler.h, already copied into the TF-M code base. If it does not meet all of our needs, should we consider proposing improvements to the upstream CMSIS project?
Kind regards, Jamie
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: 25 May 2020 05:02 To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd@arm.commailto:nd@arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] [Compiler related] Unify necessary and minimal set compiler definitions for SPM
Hi,
We created a proposal to define a minimal set of compiler specific-definitions for SPM. The reason is to avoid many #ifdef inside SPM code.
Only limited definitions are defined. Platform sources need to use platform defined headers for these definitions, such as CMSIS headers.
Special usage such as 'weak' or 'noreturn' are forbidden inside SPM.
Please put comments for this change: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4211
Or reply here.
This is just an example patch, the follow up would apply this defined headers to all SPM sources.
Thanks
/Ken
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
-
Gyorgy Szing -
Ken Liu