Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [Tee-dev] [PATCHv3 2/3] optee: use uuid for sysfs driver entry
To:     Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@linaro.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de
References: <20200525115235.5405-1-maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>
 <20200525115235.5405-3-maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>
 <7de3fea9-cd88-4dbf-aa27-3cb188fd6e85@forissier.org>
 <CAD8XO3amGVeyn9qsWE-AyGM=e36ubwxC4tiwGMVHYBL6E46ZhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jerome Forissier <jerome@forissier.org>
Message-ID: <4be64892-e027-a58d-09f5-0450088292f6@forissier.org>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 17:53:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD8XO3amGVeyn9qsWE-AyGM=e36ubwxC4tiwGMVHYBL6E46ZhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 5/25/20 3:36 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 15:10, Jerome Forissier <jerome@forissier.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/20 1:52 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
>>> Optee device names for sysfs needed to be unique
>>
>> s/Optee/OP-TEE/
>> s/needed/need/
>>
>>> and it's better if they will mean something. UUID for name
>>> looks like good solution:
>>> /sys/bus/tee/devices/optee-clnt-<uuid>
>>
>> How about mentioning it is the UUID of the Trusted Application on the
>> TEE side?
>>
> 
> Jerome, do you think optee-ta-<uuid> is more suitable here?

Yes, a bit better I think. More "self explanatory"... kind of :)

Is it possible to have several devices bound to the same TA? I think
nothing forbids this although we may not have any use case for now...

-- 
Jerome