Bryan,
> On 2 Feb 2018, at 16:37, Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonog...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 02/02/18 15:02, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>> Where do we stand on this: can we reuse IH_TYPE_TEE, will be use
>> IH_TYPE_OPTEE or will there be a new IH_TYPE_OPTEE_SPL?
>
> I think because you aren't doing anything different with the image type you
> can reuse IH_TYPE_TEE
>
> This
>
> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OPTEE)
> + case IH_OS_OP_TEE:
> + debug("Jumping to U-Boot via OP-TEE\n");
> + spl_optee_entry(NULL, NULL, spl_image->fdt_addr,
> + (void *)spl_image.entry_point);
> + break;
> +#endif
>
> could just as easily be this
>
> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OPTEE)
> + case IH_TYPE_TEE:
> + debug("Jumping to U-Boot via OP-TEE\n");
> + spl_optee_entry(NULL, NULL, spl_image->fdt_addr,
> + (void *)spl_image.entry_point);
> + break;
> +#endif
>
> should be a matter of just replacing the call to mkimage to use
>
> mkimage -A arm -T tee
>
> instead of
>
> mkimage -A arm -T optee
>
> and the suggested change above.. case IH_OS_OP_TEE -> case IH_TYPE_TEE
Thanks for summarising your suggestion.
However, my mail was intended to test the waters to see what the consensus was.
A it appears that none has yet emerged between all the involved parties
(including
our colleagues from TI that had also chimed in on the discussion).
So for now, I’ll sit back and wait until some sort of consensus (or at least a
majority
for one solution or the other) emerges.
Personally, I am not happy with having a ‘tee’ and an ‘optee’ both refering to
OP-TEE
and the upstream OP-TEE documentation suggesting that their envisioned boot
process was to boot through the OP-TEE (i.e. what the ‘tee’ image type does).
However, with the ‘tee’ image type already being defined, we seem to have
already
backed ourselves into a situation where the naming is non-intuitive.
Regards,
Philipp.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
