Re: [GIT PULL] OP-TEE update for v7.4

[Jens Wiklander]

Hi Marouene,

Can you make a v5 of "[PATCH v4] tee: optee: build the Arm-specific
code only on Arm" addressing Arnd's comments, please? That is,
replacing IS_REACHABLE() with IS_ENABLED() in the patch. As Arnd
points out, with  OPTEE depending on ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT ||
!ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT, the code is always reachable if enabled.

Thanks,
Jens

On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 8:34 AM Jens Wiklander
<jens.wiklander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 4:53 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026, at 16:51, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > > for you to fetch changes up to ccd4b23398acaf2139cf04f1ba0a66150cbf2663:
> > >
> > >   tee: optee: build the Arm-specific code only on Arm (2026-10-02
> > > 16:28:41 +0200)
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Build the OP-TEE driver's SMC and FF-A code only where supported
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Marouene Boubakri (1):
> > >       tee: optee: build the Arm-specific code only on Arm
> >
> > I had a look at the contents and saw that it keeps the
> > IS_REACHABLE() checks that are notoriously error-prone.
> > E.g. this part just looks broken:
> >
> > @@ -257,8 +266,12 @@ struct optee {
> >         const struct optee_ops *ops;
> >         struct tee_context *ctx;
> >         union {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
> >                 struct optee_smc smc;
> > +#endif
> > +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT)
> >                 struct optee_ffa ffa;
> > +#endif
> >         };
> >         struct optee_shm_arg_cache shm_arg_cache;
> >         struct optee_call_queue call_queue;
> >
> > The presence of the 'ffa' member in the union is conditional
> > on whether the driver that includes the header is a loadable
> > module or built-in, and this changes the entire structure
> > layout if both types of users are present.
> >
> > The intention of the patch does make a lot of sense,
> > but as far as I can tell, only the Kconfig change is
> > actually required, while the added preprocessor checks
> > only make it harder to read and it should have been
> > sufficient to change the existing IS_REACHABLE() to
> > IS_ENABLED() for consistency.
> >
> > Sorry I did not notice this one earlier as I was travelling,
> > but I think I can't pull this version, please respin.
>
> Thanks for catching this. We'll repin.
>
> Cheers,
> Jens