[PATCH v17 09/10] arm_ffa: efi: introduce FF-A MM communication

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 19:19, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 05:10:08PM +0100, Abdellatif El Khlifi wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 11:00:57AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > Changelog:
> > > > > > > > > > ===============
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > v17:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * show a debug message rather than an error when FF-A is not detected
> > > > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > index c5835e6ef6..8fbadb9201 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -55,13 +55,53 @@ config EFI_VARIABLE_FILE_STORE
> > > > > > > > > >         stored as file /ubootefi.var on the EFI system partition.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  config EFI_MM_COMM_TEE
> > > > > > > > > > -     bool "UEFI variables storage service via OP-TEE"
> > > > > > > > > > -     depends on OPTEE
> > > > > > > > > > +     bool "UEFI variables storage service via the trusted world"
> > > > > > > > > > +     depends on OPTEE && ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You didn't get my changes in here however. If you can do EFI_MM_COMM_TEE
> > > > > > > > > without ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT (as lx2160ardb_tfa_stmm_defconfig does) then
> > > > > > > > > you don't make this option depend on .  If FF-A is only
> > > > > > > > > for use here, you make FF-A depend on this, and the FF-A specific
> > > > > > > > > variable depend on ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Abdellatif hinted at what's going on here.  When I added this Kconfig
> > > > > > > > option to lx2160 FF-A wasn't implemented yet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The defconfig has existed since May 2020, which is when you added
> > > > > > > EFI_MM_COMM_TEE itself too.  So I think it's that no one did the check I
> > > > > > > did until now and saw this series was disabling what was on the other
> > > > > > > platform.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since FF-A isn't a new
> > > > > > > > communication mechanism but builds upon the existing SMCs to build an
> > > > > > > > easier API, I asked Abdellatif to hide this complexity.
> > > > > > > > We had two options, either make Kconfig options for either FF-A or the
> > > > > > > > traditional SMCs and remove the dependencies,  or piggyback on FF-As
> > > > > > > > discovery mechanism and make the choice at runtime.  The latter has a
> > > > > > > > small impact on code size, but imho makes developers' life a lot
> > > > > > > > easier.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure how much you can do a run-time option here since you're
> > > > > > > setting a bunch of default values for FF-A to 0 in Kconfig.  If we're
> > > > > > > supposed to be able to get them at run time, we shouldn't need a Kconfig
> > > > > > > option at all.  I'm also not sure how valid a use case it is where we
> > > > > > > won't know at build time what the rest of the firmware stack supports
> > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a fair point.  FF-A in theory has APIs to discover memory.
> > > > > > Abdellatif, why do we need the Kconfigs for shared memory on FF-A?
> > > > >
> > > > > The statically carved out MM shared buffer address, size and offset cannot be discovered by FF-A ABIs.
> > > > > The MM communication driver in U-Boot could allocate the buffer and share it with the MM SP but
> > > > > we do not implement that support currently in either U-Boot or UEFI.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, that's a bit unfortunate, but Tom is right.  Having the FF-A
> > > > addresses show up is as confusing as having Kconfig options for
> > > > discrete options.  The whole point of my suggestion was to make users'
> > > > lives easier.  Apologies for the confusion but can you bring back the
> > > > ifdefs?  Looking at the patch this should be minimal just use
> > > > ifdef ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT and ifndef ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT.
> > > >
> > > > Tom you prefer that as well?
> > >
> > > Pending an answer to Jens' feedback, yes, going back to #ifdef's is
> > > fine, especially since default values of 0 are nonsense in this case
> > > (and as Heinrich's patch re SYS_MALLOC_LEN shows, dangerous since 0 !=
> > > 0x0 once we do string comparisons).
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to give some context why it's important for Corstone-1000 platform
> > that the DT passed to the kernel matches the official kernel DT.
>
> Note that we've set aside the "should this be in DT or not" question.
>
> > There is a SystemReady IR 2.0 test checking the DT. It compares the DT
> > passed by U-Boot with a reference DT (the kernel DT) . The test fails if there
> > is a mismatch. So, if we add a DT node in U-Boot and the node is not upstreamed
> > to the kernel DT, the DT test will fail.
>
> This is overall good and progress.
>
> > To be approved by the kernel DT maintainers, the node should have a use case
> > in the kernel which is not the case.
>
> This is, I believe / hope wrong.  It needs to be in the dt-schema
> repository, not strictly "the kernel".  For example, bootph-all (etc)
> are in dt-schema and so can be in the upstream kernel but are not used
> in the kernel itself.
>
> > There is a solution for this which is deleting the node we don't want to pass to
> > the kernel using delete-node in the U-Boot DT.
>
> Something like this will likely be needed, in the end, at least for some
> cases.  But the goal is that everything gets in to dt-schema.

We are already working on U-Boot on that.  The idea is rather simple.
We will have an array with nodes and node entries.  Before we boot up
we'll scan that array, if a node entry exists we will delete that,
otherwise we will just get rid of the entire node.  That should be
pretty easy to maintain and extend.  U-Boot will then be able to use
it;s internal bidings without polluting the DT we handover to the
kernel.

I think you should just wait for that patch instead of hacking the boot cmd.

>
> [snip]
> > With this we can get rid of the configs and the #defines: FFA_SHARED_MM_BUF_ADDR,
> > FFA_SHARED_MM_BUF_OFFSET and FFA_SHARED_MM_BUF_SIZE.
> >
> > Also, we will avoid setting 0 as default values for the address, size and offset.
>
> We just need to not have default values offered.  The symbols just need
> to depend on FFA so that they aren't asked when not used.
>
> > 2/ the FF-A specific code in efi_variable_tee.c will try to find the mm-comms-buf
> > reserved memory node. When found, it reads the buffer address, size and offset.
> >
> > 3/ adding #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_FFA_TRANSPORT in lib/efi_loader/efi_variable_tee.c
> > for the FF-A specific code.
> >
> > 4/ make EFI_MM_COMM_TEE depends on OPTEE only
> >
> > What do you think guys ?
>
> Yes, we need to do 3 and 4.

+1 here

Thanks
/Ilias
>
> --
> Tom