On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 02:03:36PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2021, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:38:52AM -0700, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:43 PM François Ozog <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > I assume this needs to be analyzed from System Device Tree perspective: > > > > https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/components/psa-ffa-manifest-binding.html > > > > > > That's not what we're reviewing upstream[1]. > > > > > > > Thanks Rob for including me. I wasn't aware of such formal proposal > > of bindings from the firmware/system perspective. I agree and happy to > > re-use the bindings if required. > > > > However, the idea with bindings for OSPM(mainly kernel with no hypervisor) > > was to keep it minimal or even zero(which is not possible as the > > specification lacks any mechanism to get the UUID list for the partitions. > > > > Also, where are these system/firmware DT bindings getting reviewed ? > > There are so many bindings used in some of these firmware/systems > > without much(even zero) review of them on a list, so I am bit worried > > to use them as is. Should they not get reviewed on some list if not > > existing device-tree mailing list. Sorry if they are on some list > > which I am not yet part of, happy to get added to them. > > They have been discussed during the System Device Tree calls and on the > system-dt mailing list: > https://lists.openampproject.org/mailman/listinfo/system-dt. We have
Thanks I have now subscribed. > recordings and minutes of the meetings. Have a look at this video for an > overview on System Device Tree: > https://connect.linaro.org/resources/san19/san19-115/. > I had a fair understanding of what was happening, wasn't aware the degree of momentum there. Good refresher though. > Most of the times System Device Tree is not used at runtime and Linux is > typically not the primary target. System-DT is most often used at build > time / configuration time before the target board is turned on. A tool > named "Lopper" (https://github.com/devicetree-org/lopper) generates > multiple traditional Device Trees from a single System Device Tree. > And I assume and expect the *traditional Device Trees* at-least the ones fed to Linux follow all the bindings discussed on the device-tree mailing list. > Things don't always look exactly the same in System Device Tree compared > to regular Device Trees. So, we don't have to necessarely reuse the > openamp,domain bindings as they are today. Good to know, not sure what @Rob would like to see(expect) in terms of alignment here. You seem to have agreed on the FFA Linux bindings I have proposed. Let me know if that is not the case. > However, it would be good to align them where it makes sense to reduce > complexity. We have gone through a similar exercise for the RemoteProc > bindings and I think it> improved both System-DT and regular DT as a result. > > I would like to hear a bit more about your use-case to plot together the > best course of action. > Sure. Happy to collaborate and discuss. I wanted to check if we can have a brief discussion on this in the next call on Fri 29th Jan if possible and time permits. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
