[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 08/12] doc: TEE: Add documentation describing TEE in u-boot

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

On 26/02/18 13:53, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>> +  To identify this type of image to u-boot you should use mkimage like this:
>> +
>> +  mkimage -A arm -T tee -C none -d tee-image.bin uTee-standalone
> The type should be “tee-standalone” to avoid confusion with the boot-through
> variety.

Eh, I actually agree with you.

I was thinking that making the change from "tee" to "tee-standalone" and 
might break things for people with their continuous-integration 
jobs/scripts etc.

So I was going to send out an "RFC" patch changing "tee" to 
"tee-standalone".

I'm just as happy to make the name change in this set if it's an agreed 
thing with Tom and Andrew though.

> 
>> +
>> +- "tee-bootable"
>> +
>> +  mkimage -A arm -T tee-bootable -C none -d tee.bin uTee-bootable

> Bootable doesn’t really describe this: both the -standalone and this version of
> the OPTEE are bootable, but the difference is that this variant also contains the
> next-stage payload. Either we keep Tom’s proposed -combo naming or we can
> try to describe this as a “tee-with-payload” type.

Hmm - I thought Tom had suggested

"tee" - stays as is because that's what it's already called.
"tee-standalone" - which I've called "tee-bootable"

and then there was a potential addition "tee-combo" covering what Kever 
may or may not do with his SPL implementation.

but I opted for "tee-bootable" instead of "tee-standalone"..

I think we need two decisions here:

#1 Exiting:
"tee" - stay as
"tee-standalone" - new name more obvious - adds churn into mkimage namespace

#2 Bootable OPTEE (chainload):
"tee-bootable"
"tee-chainload"
"tee-with-payload" (not so sure about this myself)

Tom, Philipp, Andrew ?

--
bod