From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792507433; b=LVhPhmJUh0bqdQR9sktaGiD5IXHkAy3F2wobSMcFPLkFJE1XwZ1+fkmu3ro2WuCQzw7z q9GFriS90xQWOvYLyx//D1Eq9tHRnTMzG+tbnQqEiO2jExpAR2YhMtF+UNNc+0cH8QZ11 QTkfkFEdloY/ZIoIX4LoZsP4ASbLlu00be/Gun4DksnXNw7UbSA31hI+Nm0MpkToVEgvd h8dnjJydu6f3QbG+3lyV/UI0ui7LQYgc2Uycp7XfVO0PlyOI5Hz9z6UyFZLFXliBrxIuq 6jbbnLvCwnAP7ja/qTC/0xvqVk36FxYr+jef7VJLXHgFaxgIEsgUoY7uCZLu5+k1b9Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792507433; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=tszaJSkqKNg/gD6sLTsFGX7FDn5XDitEJB0LfKIiqEg=; b=RU+PPrqfi76BQHdTXX1Z0nlxW3wPz9VGrrfMnC1EARaJ6vUCfn3eKybiDCF6zDPI2/dH nThGZxP0i44ZoquzHKXyFpQ9OPSe3G+lC7W5RfCtl+Ki7V29QIh3m6sxmuz6aqDBhjkwh Am0nr8G6SkcYIYg1SMX325/A+nCMv7PyfLZislz+uRbry0qw68aImHXRKyPzroIbaC3dv RbvxmPQxYgg6IzgkrvmzrcxjVIc49s1VauUnU8IfXPzmlqpZpEB0ZAckjFGERlvPLcWDi BZXSHxUzY9cPLyGA5Xcm15vWYTCSWVjWfW51VrbnKKNO8/Q2vIsD03M7324cS03ob+Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=Flm2RA8p; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB48606A31E for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 3CB48606A31E Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=Flm2RA8p Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA5C2103; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 07:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e129823.arm.com (e129823.arm.com [10.2.213.3]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA1943F7D8; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1792507431; bh=ai4CxfHeJGRIqDqehiHXoYeWahRJlQGznfMvaCHUgDA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Flm2RA8pFqaKopRDXQeefae7/VimisOEoCJEbluSS7T0/WgQQcubrPzP/h3Yw9KEL 5q1JvjnnsBBEg6nJtiSbWugJId8gxKKYKAvHk7SYJ0oTT077wcke/d3oArCP654MkW Y6jPeUkZtobPsJudSRBSP9WRwTZy7YhpEw/5LZFY= Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:43:47 +0100 From: Yeoreum Yun To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Yeoreum Yun , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi , Catalin Marinas , Suzuki Poulose , Steven Price , Sami Mujawar , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Jiri Pirko , GONG Ruiqi Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] firmware: arm_firme: introduce FIRME support for host attestation Message-ID: References: <20261019-firme_interface-v1-0-27895c9cebaa@arm.com> <20261019233532.GL14213@ziepe.ca> <20261020124536.GM14213@ziepe.ca> <20261020135006.GO14213@ziepe.ca> <20261020143620.GP14213@ziepe.ca> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261020143620.GP14213@ziepe.ca> On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 11:36:20AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 03:13:19PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > I wouldn't over complicated it. We already have smccc bus to do this, > > > we don't need layered stacks of busses here. Just change smccc bus to > > > be able to break up the multi-function SMC into several devices. > > > > I think my explaination was poor. Apologise... > > I'm not saying another bus making but just wrapper of smccc-bus APIs > > for firme specific and definietly, this would separate the > > multi-function SMC to defien each firme device (attestation and IDE). > > I don't see that kind of complexity is necessary.. I think it is > better to just have the root smcc bus spawn them > > > But, the *base* is common. and I couldn't find any proper location to > > deploy *common* code unless making arm_firme. > > What common code excatly? > > There shouldn't be? Getting an attestation is entirely orthogonal to > set link ide, for example? > > If you can identify what you think would ever be common that might > help clarifgy what to do.. I mean the BASE service of firme and typical example is shared buffer allocation. I agree IDE and attestaion service are orthogonal. but in case of base-service is not. it could be used for both service. Therefore, the firme_device wouldn't export all functions. In case of attestaion, it's enough to export base-service and attestation-service only. for the IDE, base-service and ide-service via union. Also We don't need to export base-service firme device as part of smccc device. It's enough to export two devices -- attestation and IDE via base_ops. But, to share the base-service opeerations to both devices, I think it would be better to have current arm_fimre layer. -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun