[meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Khem Raj]

all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm machines too
this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP environments, platforms which
support optee should be specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE,
for general case it remains 'null'

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
---
 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb   | 2 ++
 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb | 2 ++
 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb       | 1 +
 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb     | 1 +
 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc             | 2 ++
 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc

diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
index a25d343..bae7b20 100644
--- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
+++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE;md5=69663ab153298557a59c67a60a743e5b"
 
 PV = "3.8.0+git${SRCPV}"
 
+require optee.inc
+
 inherit python3native systemd
 
 SRCREV = "be4fa2e36f717f03ca46e574aa66f697a897d090"
diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
index 768a55b..996e2cd 100644
--- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
+++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ DEPENDS = "optee-client optee-os python3-pycryptodomex-native"
 
 inherit python3native
 
+require optee.inc
+
 SRC_URI = "git://github.com/linaro-swg/optee_examples.git"
 SRCREV = "559b2141c16bf0f57ccd72f60e4deb84fc2a05b0"
 
diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
index 47ced12..5c420b7 100644
--- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
+++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE;md5=c1f21c4f72f372ef38a5a4aee55ec173"
 PV = "3.8.0+git${SRCPV}"
 
 inherit deploy python3native
+require optee.inc
 
 DEPENDS = "python3-pycrypto-native python3-pyelftools-native python3-pycryptodomex-native"
 
diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
index 752d75d..ee73a2c 100644
--- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
+++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ LICENSE = "BSD & GPLv2"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE.md;md5=daa2bcccc666345ab8940aab1315a4fa"
 
 inherit python3native
+require optee.inc
 
 DEPENDS = "optee-client optee-os python3-pycryptodomex-native"
 
diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a12521d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
+# Please add supported machines below
-- 
2.26.0

Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Jon Mason]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:45:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm machines too
> this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP environments, platforms which
> support optee should be specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE,
> for general case it remains 'null'

Pulled into the master branch.

Thanks,
Jon

> 
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> ---
>  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb   | 2 ++
>  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb | 2 ++
>  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb       | 1 +
>  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb     | 1 +
>  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc             | 2 ++
>  5 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> 
> diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
> index a25d343..bae7b20 100644
> --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
> +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE;md5=69663ab153298557a59c67a60a743e5b"
>  
>  PV = "3.8.0+git${SRCPV}"
>  
> +require optee.inc
> +
>  inherit python3native systemd
>  
>  SRCREV = "be4fa2e36f717f03ca46e574aa66f697a897d090"
> diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
> index 768a55b..996e2cd 100644
> --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
> +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ DEPENDS = "optee-client optee-os python3-pycryptodomex-native"
>  
>  inherit python3native
>  
> +require optee.inc
> +
>  SRC_URI = "git://github.com/linaro-swg/optee_examples.git"
>  SRCREV = "559b2141c16bf0f57ccd72f60e4deb84fc2a05b0"
>  
> diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
> index 47ced12..5c420b7 100644
> --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
> +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE;md5=c1f21c4f72f372ef38a5a4aee55ec173"
>  PV = "3.8.0+git${SRCPV}"
>  
>  inherit deploy python3native
> +require optee.inc
>  
>  DEPENDS = "python3-pycrypto-native python3-pyelftools-native python3-pycryptodomex-native"
>  
> diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
> index 752d75d..ee73a2c 100644
> --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
> +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ LICENSE = "BSD & GPLv2"
>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE.md;md5=daa2bcccc666345ab8940aab1315a4fa"
>  
>  inherit python3native
> +require optee.inc
>  
>  DEPENDS = "optee-client optee-os python3-pycryptodomex-native"
>  
> diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..a12521d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
> +# Please add supported machines below
> -- 
> 2.26.0
> 

> 

Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:45:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm machines too
> > this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP environments, platforms which
> > support optee should be specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE,
> > for general case it remains 'null'
> 
> Pulled into the master branch.

I think this was due to the parsing issues, resolved by another patch. What's 
the point of masking this recipes now?


> Thanks,
> Jon
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb   | 2 ++
> >  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb | 2 ++
> >  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb       | 1 +
> >  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb     | 1 +
> >  meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc             | 2 ++
> >  5 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
> > index a25d343..bae7b20 100644
> > --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
> > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-client_git.bb
> > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE;md5=69663ab153298557a59c67a60a743e5b"
> >  
> >  PV = "3.8.0+git${SRCPV}"
> >  
> > +require optee.inc
> > +
> >  inherit python3native systemd
> >  
> >  SRCREV = "be4fa2e36f717f03ca46e574aa66f697a897d090"
> > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
> > index 768a55b..996e2cd 100644
> > --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
> > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-examples_git.bb
> > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ DEPENDS = "optee-client optee-os python3-pycryptodomex-native"
> >  
> >  inherit python3native
> >  
> > +require optee.inc
> > +
> >  SRC_URI = "git://github.com/linaro-swg/optee_examples.git"
> >  SRCREV = "559b2141c16bf0f57ccd72f60e4deb84fc2a05b0"
> >  
> > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
> > index 47ced12..5c420b7 100644
> > --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
> > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-os_git.bb
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE;md5=c1f21c4f72f372ef38a5a4aee55ec173"
> >  PV = "3.8.0+git${SRCPV}"
> >  
> >  inherit deploy python3native
> > +require optee.inc
> >  
> >  DEPENDS = "python3-pycrypto-native python3-pyelftools-native python3-pycryptodomex-native"
> >  
> > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
> > index 752d75d..ee73a2c 100644
> > --- a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
> > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee-test_git.bb
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ LICENSE = "BSD & GPLv2"
> >  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/LICENSE.md;md5=daa2bcccc666345ab8940aab1315a4fa"
> >  
> >  inherit python3native
> > +require optee.inc
> >  
> >  DEPENDS = "optee-client optee-os python3-pycryptodomex-native"
> >  
> > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..a12521d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
> > +# Please add supported machines below
> > -- 
> > 2.26.0
> > 
> 
> > 
> 

> 

Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:06:37PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:45:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm machines too
> > > this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP environments, platforms which
> > > support optee should be specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE,
> > > for general case it remains 'null'
> > 
> > Pulled into the master branch.
> 
> I think this was due to the parsing issues, resolved by another patch. What's 
> the point of masking this recipes now?
> 
> 
> > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  
> > > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..a12521d
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
> > > +# Please add supported machines below

Can we instead of neutering all OPTEE recipes and requiring BSPs to provide 
bbappends with COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for opt-in, add EXCLUDE_FROM_WORLD = "1"?

-- 
Denys

Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:40 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:06:37PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:45:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm machines too
> > > > this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP environments, platforms which
> > > > support optee should be specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE,
> > > > for general case it remains 'null'
> > >
> > > Pulled into the master branch.
> >
> > I think this was due to the parsing issues, resolved by another patch. What's
> > the point of masking this recipes now?
> >
> >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..a12521d
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
> > > > +# Please add supported machines below
>
> Can we instead of neutering all OPTEE recipes and requiring BSPs to provide
> bbappends with COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for opt-in, add EXCLUDE_FROM_WORLD = "1"?

its fine to provide it via bbappends, as long as it is per machine,
which really supports Optee
it is also educational to understand the recipes thats way, excluding
from world is then not required.

>
> --
> Denys

Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:55:25PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:40 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:06:37PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:45:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > > all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm machines too
> > > > > this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP environments, platforms which
> > > > > support optee should be specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE,
> > > > > for general case it remains 'null'
> > > >
> > > > Pulled into the master branch.
> > >
> > > I think this was due to the parsing issues, resolved by another patch. What's
> > > the point of masking this recipes now?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 0000000..a12521d
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > > > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
> > > > > +# Please add supported machines below
> >
> > Can we instead of neutering all OPTEE recipes and requiring BSPs to provide
> > bbappends with COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for opt-in, add EXCLUDE_FROM_WORLD = "1"?
> 
> its fine to provide it via bbappends, as long as it is per machine,
> which really supports Optee
> it is also educational to understand the recipes thats way, excluding
> from world is then not required.

This is rather backwards. OPTEE is widely used these days.

What's the harm for the recipe to be fully open and compatible, if it's not 
being built by default?

Otherwise, we should similarly neuter ATF, U-boot and even kernel - not 
all platforms are supported by those and require per-machine support and 
configarion added. Why not require those to be opt-in via bbappends?

-- 
Denys

Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Diego Sueiro]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org <meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org>
> On Behalf Of Denys Dmytriyenko via lists.yoctoproject.org
> Sent: 14 April 2020 01:49
> To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> Cc: meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default
> 
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:55:25PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:40 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:06:37PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:45:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > > > all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm
> > > > > > machines too this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP
> > > > > > environments, platforms which support optee should be
> > > > > > specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE, for general case it
> remains 'null'
> > > > >
> > > > > Pulled into the master branch.
> > > >
> > > > I think this was due to the parsing issues, resolved by another
> > > > patch. What's the point of masking this recipes now?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > > b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > index 0000000..a12521d
> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > > > > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
> > > > > > +# Please add supported machines below
> > >
> > > Can we instead of neutering all OPTEE recipes and requiring BSPs to
> > > provide bbappends with COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for opt-in, add
> EXCLUDE_FROM_WORLD = "1"?
> >
> > its fine to provide it via bbappends, as long as it is per machine,
> > which really supports Optee it is also educational to understand the
> > recipes thats way, excluding from world is then not required.
> 
> This is rather backwards. OPTEE is widely used these days.
> 
> What's the harm for the recipe to be fully open and compatible, if it's not
> being built by default?
> 
> Otherwise, we should similarly neuter ATF, U-boot and even kernel - not all
> platforms are supported by those and require per-machine support and
> configarion added. Why not require those to be opt-in via bbappends?

For `trusted-firmware-a` recipe we use `COMPATIBLE_MACHINE ?= "invalid"`
and I think  we should we use the same strategy for optee (use the `invalid`
term instead of `null`) to maintain consistency.

--
*dS

> 
> --
> Denys

Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:50 AM Diego Sueiro <Diego.Sueiro@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org <meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org>
> > On Behalf Of Denys Dmytriyenko via lists.yoctoproject.org
> > Sent: 14 April 2020 01:49
> > To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > Cc: meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [meta-arm][PATCH] optee-os: Mark recipes dormant by default
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:55:25PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:40 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:06:37PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:45:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > > > > all arm SOCs may not support optee and there are non-arm
> > > > > > > machines too this makes this recipe fit into mutli-BSP
> > > > > > > environments, platforms which support optee should be
> > > > > > > specifically called out via COMPATIBLE_MACHINE, for general case it
> > remains 'null'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pulled into the master branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this was due to the parsing issues, resolved by another
> > > > > patch. What's the point of masking this recipes now?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > > > b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > index 0000000..a12521d
> > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee/optee.inc
> > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > > > > > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "null"
> > > > > > > +# Please add supported machines below
> > > >
> > > > Can we instead of neutering all OPTEE recipes and requiring BSPs to
> > > > provide bbappends with COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for opt-in, add
> > EXCLUDE_FROM_WORLD = "1"?
> > >
> > > its fine to provide it via bbappends, as long as it is per machine,
> > > which really supports Optee it is also educational to understand the
> > > recipes thats way, excluding from world is then not required.
> >
> > This is rather backwards. OPTEE is widely used these days.
> >
> > What's the harm for the recipe to be fully open and compatible, if it's not
> > being built by default?
> >
> > Otherwise, we should similarly neuter ATF, U-boot and even kernel - not all
> > platforms are supported by those and require per-machine support and
> > configarion added. Why not require those to be opt-in via bbappends?
>
> For `trusted-firmware-a` recipe we use `COMPATIBLE_MACHINE ?= "invalid"`
> and I think  we should we use the same strategy for optee (use the `invalid`
> term instead of `null`) to maintain consistency.
>

sure send a patch, I think that's fine.

> --
> *dS
>
> >
> > --
> > Denys