Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] optee: riscv: add RPMI TEE service group transport

[Trilok Soni <trilokkumar.soni@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 9/12/2026 3:15 AM, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> Add an OP-TEE transport for RISC-V using the RPMI TEE service group over
> the SBI MPXY mailbox framework.
> 
> Request one mailbox channel per hart and use the channel corresponding to
> the current CPU when issuing a TEE request. Probe the RPMI TEE service
> group and required memory-sharing capabilities before registering the
> transport.
> 
> This provides the basic transport and discovery support needed by the
> following patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tee/optee/Makefile                 |   1 +
>  drivers/tee/optee/core.c                   |   8 +-
>  drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h          |  34 ++++
>  drivers/tee/optee/optee_riscv.c            | 312 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/tee/optee/optee_riscv.h            | 141 +++++++++++++
>  include/linux/mailbox/riscv-rpmi-message.h |   1 +
>  6 files changed, 495 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/Makefile b/drivers/tee/optee/Makefile
> index ad7049c1c107..925b8ec7ef68 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/optee/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/Makefile
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ optee-objs += supp.o
>  optee-objs += device.o
>  optee-objs += smc_abi.o
>  optee-objs += ffa_abi.o
> +optee-$(CONFIG_RISCV_SBI_MPXY_MBOX) += optee_riscv.o
>  
>  # for tracing framework to find optee_trace.h
>  CFLAGS_smc_abi.o := -I$(src)
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/core.c b/drivers/tee/optee/core.c
> index a52c1f498b99..63f1725e646e 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/optee/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/core.c
> @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ void optee_remove_common(struct optee *optee)
>  
>  static int smc_abi_rc;
>  static int ffa_abi_rc;
> +static int riscv_abi_rc;
>  static bool intf_is_regged;
>  
>  static int __init optee_core_init(void)
> @@ -245,9 +246,10 @@ static int __init optee_core_init(void)
>  
>  	smc_abi_rc = optee_smc_abi_register();
>  	ffa_abi_rc = optee_ffa_abi_register();
> +	riscv_abi_rc = optee_riscv_abi_register();

Isn't it growing rapidly now? We have two register calls for the ARM,
one for the RISC-V. One more region specific ISA I am aware of and it
may have op-tee support in future? It is time we fix this logic
in the better way. 
 

>  
> -	/* If both failed there's no point with this module */
> -	if (smc_abi_rc && ffa_abi_rc) {
> +	/* If all failed there's no point with this module */
> +	if (smc_abi_rc && ffa_abi_rc && riscv_abi_rc) {

This is started looking ugly in my opinion. 

>  		if (IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RPMB)) {
>  			rpmb_interface_unregister(&rpmb_class_intf);
>  			intf_is_regged = false;
> @@ -270,6 +272,8 @@ static void __exit optee_core_exit(void)
>  		optee_smc_abi_unregister();
>  	if (!ffa_abi_rc)
>  		optee_ffa_abi_unregister();
> +	if (!riscv_abi_rc)
> +		optee_riscv_abi_unregister();
>  }
>  module_exit(optee_core_exit);
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h b/drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h
> index aefe1e6f5689..8d22d65e087b 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h
> +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h
> @@ -171,6 +171,31 @@ struct optee_ffa {
>  	struct work_struct notif_work;
>  };
>  
> +/**
> + * struct optee_riscv - RPMI TEE communication struct

do we need to name it optee_riscv? we don't use optee_arm anywhere in this
code I believe. 

More later...