Re: [PATCH v4 01/26] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add Arm GICv5

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:37 AM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 16:15, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 2:48 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 02:17:26PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > secure.txt says:
> > > > # The general principle of the naming scheme for Secure world bindings
> > > > # is that any property that needs a different value in the Secure world
> > > > # can be supported by prefixing the property name with "secure-". So for
> > > > # instance "secure-foo" would override "foo".
> >
> > Today I would say a 'secure-' prefix is a mistake. To my knowledge,
> > it's never been used anyways. But I don't have much visibility into
> > what secure world firmware is doing.
>
> QEMU uses it for communicating with the secure firmware if
> you run secure firmware on the virt board. It's done that
> since we introduced that binding. Indeed that use case is *why*
> the binding is there. It works fine for the intended purpose,
> which is "most devices are visible in both S and NS, but a few
> things are S only (UART, a bit of RAM, secure-only flash").

I meant "secure-" as a prefix allowed on *any* property, not
"secure-status" specifically, which is the only thing QEMU uses
AFAICT. IOW, I don't think we should be creating secure-reg,
secure-interrupts, secure-clocks, etc.

Rob