On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Jens Wiklander
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:01:10AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 09:21:25AM +0100, Jens Wiklander wrote:

quoted

Introduces optee prefix and adds bindings for ARM TrustZone based OP-TEE
implementation.

Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
---
 .../bindings/arm/firmware/optee,optee-tz.txt       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt        |  1 +
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/optee,optee-tz.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/optee,optee-tz.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/optee,optee-tz.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0a8ed0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/optee,optee-tz.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+OP-TEE Device Tree Bindings
+
+OP-TEE is a piece of software using hardware features to provide a Trusted
+Execution Environment. The security can be provided with ARM TrustZone, but
+also by virtualization or a separate chip. As there's no single OP-TEE
+vendor we're using "optee" as the first part of compatible property,
+indicating the OP-TEE protocol is used when communicating with the secure
+world.

[...]

quoted

quoted

+Example:
+   optee {

This should go under a /firmware node similar to
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/firmware/tlm,trusted-foundations.txt.

I tried that and discovered that a
compatible = "simple-bus";
is needed for the firmware node for optee to get probed. Is it OK to write
the example as:

firmware {
        compatible = "simple-bus";

        optee {

That would needlessly create devices for any other child nodes and it
is not a bus. Just find the node and call of_platform_device_create
for that node in an initcall.

Rob