Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dt: Add bindings for Secure-only devices

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The existing device tree bindings assume that we are only trying to
> describe a single address space with a device tree (for ARM, either
> the Normal or the Secure world). Some uses for device tree need to
> describe both Normal and Secure worlds in a single device tree. Add
> documentation of how to do this, by adding extra properties which
> describe when a device appears differently in the two worlds or when
> it only appears in one of them.
>
> The binding describes the general principles for adding new
> properties describing the secure world, but for now we only need a
> single new property, "secure-status", which can be used to annotate
> devices to indicate that they are only visible in one of the two
> worlds.
>
> The primary expected use of this binding is for a virtual machine
> like QEMU to describe the VM layout to a TrustZone aware firmware
> (which would then use the secure-only devices itself, and pass the DT
> on to a kernel running in the non-secure world, which ignores the
> secure-only devices and uses the rest).
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This binding doesn't affect the kernel itself, but the kernel
> Documentation/ tree is the de-facto current place where all DT
> bindings are documented, so Grant suggested this was the right
> place to send a doc patch.
>
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/secure.txt | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/secure.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/secure.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/secure.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..4129fba
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/secure.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> +* ARM Secure world bindings
> +
> +ARM CPUs with TrustZone support have two distinct address spaces,
> +"Normal" and "Secure". Most devicetree consumers (including the Linux
> +kernel) are not TrustZone aware and run entirely in either the Normal
> +world or the Secure world. However some devicetree consumers are
> +TrustZone aware and need to be able to determine whether devices are
> +visible only in the Secure address space, only in the Normal address
> +space, or visible in both. (One example of that situation would be a
> +virtual machine which boots Secure firmware and wants to tell the
> +firmware about the layout of the machine via devicetree.)
> +
> +The general principle of the naming scheme for Secure world bindings
> +is that any property that needs a different value in the Secure world
> +can be supported by prefixing the property name with "secure-". So for
> +instance "secure-reg" would override "reg". If there is no "secure-"
> +property then the Secure world value is the same as specified for the
> +Normal world by the non-prefixed property. However, only the
> +properties listed below may validly have "secure-" versions; this list
> +will be enlarged on a case-by-case basis.

Certainly having lots of properties prefixed this way is not what I
would like to see.

> +Defining the bindings in this way means that a device tree which has
> +been annotated to indicate the presence of Secure-only devices can
> +still be processed unmodified by existing Non-secure software (and in
> +particular by the kernel).
> +
> +Note that it is still valid for bindings intended for purely Secure
> +world consumers (like kernels that run entirely in Secure) to simply
> +describe the view of Secure world using the standard bindings. These
> +secure- bindings only need to be used where both the Secure and Normal
> +world views need to be described in a single device tree.
> +
> +Valid Secure world properties:
> +
> +- secure-status : specifies whether the device is present and usable
> +  in the secure world. The combination of this with "status" allows
> +  the various possible combinations of device visibility to be
> +  specified:
> +   status = "okay";                             // visible in S and NS

I assume neither property present or both okay also mean the same.

status = "okay"; secure-status = "okay";

We should be explicit.

> +   status = "disabled"; secure-status = "okay"; // S-only
> +   status = "okay"; secure-status = "disabled"; // NS-only

In HKG when we discussed this, 'status = "secure"' was the proposal.
That would be simpler:

S world can use "okay" or "secure"
NS world can use "okay" or no property.

That leaves out the case of disabled in S and enabled for NS. We could
want that for s/w reasons, but can we have h/w like that?

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/