Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: defconfig: Enable QCOMTEE on Qualcomm SM8650+

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 11:50:33AM +0530, Harshal Dev wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 1/2/2026 11:53 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 02:21:57PM +0530, Harshal Dev wrote:
> > [..]
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree that the defconfig change effectively enables the driver for all arm64
> >> boards, not just Qualcomm SoC based ones. To clarify this in the commit message,
> >> let me explicitly state the following:
> >> - Why we are enabling it for all arm64 boards.
> >> - From which Qualcomm SoC onwards the driver is applicable to.
> >> - What functionality the driver provides.
> >> - How it's functionality has been tested and on which board.
> >>
> >> "
> >> arm64: defconfig: Enable QCOMTEE module for QTEE-enabled Qualcomm SoCs
> >>
> >> All Qualcomm SoCs starting from SM8650 provide access to the Qualcomm Trusted
> >> Execution Environment (QTEE) through the SMCInvoke interface, implemented by
> >> the QCOMTEE driver. QTEE runs in the Secure World domain on ARM64 CPUs and
> >> exposes secure services to Linux running in the Normal World domain.
> >>
> >> This change enables the QCOMTEE driver as a module to support communication
> >> with QTEE.
> >>
> >> QCOMTEE has been tested on a Qualcomm RB3Gen2 board by loading and executing
> >> a Trusted Application via tests hosted at github.com/qualcomm/minkipc.
> >> "
> > 
> > This commit message looks good to me.
> > 
> > It also makes it clear that all platforms up to (not including) SM8650
> > _only_ supports QSEECOM, and hence makes it clear that we have reason to
> > support both mechanisms.
> 
> I agree, before QCOMTEE driver, QSEECOM was the only way to communicate with
> QTEE.
> 
> I hope everyone else is aligned as well.
> I will send a new patch version with the updated commit.
> 

I said the commit message looks good, not sure why you will send a new
version.

What I wanted to put in writing is what you're saying - that all targets
prior to SM8650 will only use QSEECOM - something that was contended in
the previous discussions.

Regards,
Bjorn

> Thanks,
> Harshal
> 
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Bjorn
>