Re: [yocto] [RFC] Moving OP-TEE support from meta-arm to oe-core
Jose Quaresma <[email protected]> Tue, 31 Mar 2026 14:49:57 +0100
| Newsgroups | org.yoctoproject.lists.meta-arm,org.yoctoproject.lists.yocto |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANPvuRnRmv+46uN0oebjyiq9vqePtK4p3cykLsK6zhCy=RAapw@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi Thomas, Could this proposal be sent to the OE-core mailing list? It's probably a bit late for the next LTS, but it doesn't hurt to try. Jose Thomas Perrot via lists.yoctoproject.org <thomas.perrot= [email protected]> escreveu (terça, 3/02/2026 à(s) 16:29): > Hello, > > On Thu, 2026-01-22 at 09:22 -0800, Khem Raj via lists.yoctoproject.org > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 9:05 AM Ross Burton via lists.yoctoproject.org > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22 Jan 2026, at 09:33, Thomas Perrot via lists.yoctoproject.org > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Currently, OP-TEE support is maintained in the meta-arm layer. However, > > OP-TEE is now being adopted by non-ARM platforms as well, notably RISC- > > V. > > > > Given this broader adoption, would it make sense to move the OP-TEE > > recipes from meta-arm to oe-core? > > > > I'd like to hear the community's thoughts on this. > > Copying in the meta-arm list. > > My immediate thought on this is “would the riscv machines actually use the > same recipes” or is there enough forking and vendor branches happening that > whilst in theory everyone is using OP-TEE, they’re not all using the _same_ > optee. > > I’m not against moving genuinely shared recipes somewhere common, but I do > think verifying this will actually happen is important. > > meta-arm tends to have several versions of optee at once for good reason… > (currently one, but about to be two) > > > > I think its a good idea, but Ross's point is good too. If optee is forked > for every architecture that can not be a good thing. However, if we can get > qemuarm64 and qemuriscv64 based machines use an upstream version reliably, > we might be able to even help upstream to keep things sane > atleast for emulated machine architecture, similar to u-boot. > > > > I agree with this approach. It's worth noting that OP-TEE upstream already > runs their test suite (xtest) on QEMU. This gives us confidence that the > upstream version works reliably on emulated machines. > > Starting with qemuarm64 and qemuriscv64 support in oe-core using upstream > OP-TEE would be a reasonable first step, leaving vendor-specific versions > and hardware-specific configurations in their respective layers. > > Kind regards, > Thomas Perrot > > Ross > > > > > > > -- > > Thomas Perrot, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and kernel engineeringhttps://bootlin.com > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#66212): > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/66212 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/117397331/5052612 > Group Owner: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [ > [email protected]] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > -- Best regards, José Quaresma