Re: [PATCH v14 3/5] tee: add OP-TEE driver
From: Jens Wiklander
Date: Wed Jan 25 2017 - 04:48:00 EST
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:53:30PM +0100, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:16:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday, January 23, 2017 10:08:53 AM CET Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:57:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:56:23 PM CET Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 05:28:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > Does the platform devices really need cleaning? I mean
> > > > > of_platform_default_populate_init() creates a bunch of platform devices
> > > > > which are just left there even if unused. Here we're doing the same
> > > > > thing except that we're doing it for a specific node in the DT.
> > > >
> > > > I think it will work if you don't clean them up, but it feels wrong
> > > > to have a loadable module that creates devices when loaded but doesn't
> > > > remove them when unloaded.
> > > >
> > > > This could be done differently by having the device creation done in
> > > > one driver and the the user of that device in another driver, but I
> > > > think just killing off the device achieves the same in a simpler way.
> > >
> > > I see your point. My final concern here is that with device we got
> > > entries in sysfs and uevents that could be used to automatically start
> > > the correct supplicant. Different drivers are likely to require
> > > different supplicants. Starting the correct supplicant based on uevents
> > > is a quite elegant solution which I'm not sure how to support when
> > > skipping devices. Perhaps I could create an object below
> > > <sysfs>/firmware/tee ?
> > Putting the objects somewhere other than /sys/devices sounds good, yes.
> > This would also help with TEE implementations that might get probed
> > differently.
> > I think the natural place would be /sys/class/tee/, as we normally
> > require something in /sys/class anyway to support the character
> > device.
> > /sys/firmware/tee/ sounds less fitting, as there other TEE implementations
> > are not necessarily firmware based, as you point out.
> > /sys/firmware/op-tee certainly makes sense for anything that is specific
> > to OP-TEE in particular, while /sys/class/tee would be for anything
> > that uses the ioctl interface. This part is particularly important to
> > get right from the start, just like the ioctls themselves we can't make
> > incompatible changes here later once there are users relying on the
> > upstream kernel interfaces.
> /sys/class/tee/ sounds good, I'll use that. It's more or less what we
> also have today.
I'm sorry, it seems a struct device has to be used in order to put stuff
under /sys/class/tee/. Or am I missing something?