On 02/26/2018 09:06 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 26/02/18 14:56, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote:
Now, I am confused.
Fair enough.
In my view there are really only two required paths i.e. kever's stuff can use the existing "tee" type, let's not discuss a third option further.
So for clarity the proposal is
- Maintain the existing "tee" as is.
As regards changing the name of "tee" to "tee-standalone" I'd like to get Tom or Andrew (both) to say that's what is wanted.
Since it's TI boards that are using the "tee" name in mkimage upstream the name-change is churn there.
Andrew, Tom ?
I wouldn't be too opposed to the name change if we decide to go down this two type path, but I'm still not convinced we are doing the right thing here.
Lets look at u-boot/include/image.h for a moment, the table of IH_TYPE_* already has a type for what we are trying to do here: IH_TYPE_KERNEL. The comment on this table describes "OS Kernel Images" as exactly what you are doing with your TEE image.
To me what you really want to do is add a new IH_OS_*, which are defined in a different table above (I see this is already done for ATF (IH_OS_ARM_TRUSTED_FIRMWARE) which shares a similar “boot-through” flow like Philipp pointed out).
So I'm still not sure what the technical reason you need a new "type" of image, when adding your hooks to the existing IH_TYPE_KERNEL path in U-Boot could be made to do the same thing when it encounters a IH_OS_TEE OS image.
Andrew
- Add a new bootable type
The set of names we have for that is
{tee-bootable, tee-chainload, tee-with-payload}
I have no strong feelings about the name for the new type either way
:)