On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 08:17:13AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> Sorry for late answer.
>
> > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 08:54:04AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > commit 746d9e9f62a6 ("tpm: tpm_crb_ffa: try to probe tpm_crb_ffa when
> > > it's build_in")
> > > probe tpm_crb_ffa forcefully when it's built-in to integrate with IMA.
> > >
> > > However, IMA now provides the IMA_INIT_LATE_SYNC build option, which
> > > initialises IMA at the late_initcall_sync level, so this change is no
> > > longer required.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb_ffa.c | 18 +++---------------
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb_ffa.c
> > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb_ffa.c
> > > index 99f1c1e5644b..025c4d4b17ca 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb_ffa.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb_ffa.c
> > > @@ -177,23 +177,13 @@ static int tpm_crb_ffa_to_linux_errno(int errno)
> > > */
> > > int tpm_crb_ffa_init(void)
> > > {
> > > - int ret = 0;
> > > -
> > > - if (!IS_MODULE(CONFIG_TCG_ARM_CRB_FFA)) {
> > > - ret = ffa_register(&tpm_crb_ffa_driver);
> > > - if (ret) {
> > > - tpm_crb_ffa = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > > - return ret;
> > > - }
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > if (!tpm_crb_ffa)
> > > - ret = -ENOENT;
> > > + return -ENOENT;
> > >
> > > if (IS_ERR_VALUE(tpm_crb_ffa))
> > > - ret = -ENODEV;
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > - return ret;
> > > + return 0;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_crb_ffa_init);
> > >
> > > @@ -405,9 +395,7 @@ static struct ffa_driver tpm_crb_ffa_driver = {
> > > .id_table = tpm_crb_ffa_device_id,
> > > };
> > >
> > > -#ifdef MODULE
> > > module_ffa_driver(tpm_crb_ffa_driver);
> > > -#endif
> > >
> > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Arm");
> > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("TPM CRB FFA driver");
> > > --
> > > LEVI:{C3F47F37-75D8-414A-A8BA-3980EC8A46D7}
> > >
> >
> > How we would sync up this patch? Through which tree etc.
>
> IMHO, the IMA relevant thing would be into IMA tree,
> However I think this patch would be much easier to sync into Sudeep's
> FF-A tree where ff-a initilisation is reverted to device_initcall
> unless you're uncomfortable.
>
> For this, It might be better to split this patch from this series
> since by above and defer probe of ff-a would make a register failure
> of registering tpm_crb_ffa driver which is built-in.
>
> @Sudeep what do you think?
>
IIRC, there is/was no dependency between these and FF-A patches that are
queued in terms of build. I agree there may be dependency to get all the
functionality but we can resort to linux-next for that. FF-A is not enabled
in the defconfig, so anyone working on FF-A + TPM must enable then and can
rely on -next IMHO.
That said, I have already sent PR for FF-A to SoC team and it is already
queued for v7.2. I don't have any other plans unless they are fixes.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
