TL;DR

The RP2350 has both an Arm Cortex-M33 pair (TrustZone-M) and a RISC-V Hazard3 pair (PMP) on one die. I built the same minimal isolation demo on both — a guarded secret, a call-in service, and a deliberate illegal read — and verified both on the same Pico 2 over SWD. Findings, all measured rather than read off a spec:

• Same result, different shape. Both block the illegal read with the secret intact. TrustZone partitions the address map and the toolchain builds the gate for you; PMP filters by privilege and you write the gate yourself.
• Arm tells you where it broke, Hazard3 doesn’t. SFSR = 0x48 sets SFARVALID, so the faulting address is there for the taking. Hazard3 leaves mtval = 0 on a PMP access fault. mcause = 5 is all you get.
• The same silicon only fought one of them. The Arm Non-Secure side hit two RP2350 walls that forced a bare-metal, RAM-resident NS image. The RISC-V U-mode side just ran from flash.
• Hazard3 has a trick TrustZone structurally can’t do: Xh3pmpm lets M-mode sandbox itself, reversibly.
• Neither of them covers the DMA. That’s a separate MPU, and it’s the RP2350 detail most likely to quietly ruin your day.

Code: rp2350-tz-tee — minimal-tz (Arm) and minimal-pmp (RISC-V).

TL;DR

• It came up secure end-to-end: memory map + DDR firewall, a real hardware TRNG (RK3576’s RKRNG, not RK3588’s TRNG_V1), and an OTP-derived Hardware Unique Key — xtest passes 113/114 on hardware, and the one miss was a build config, not the platform.
• The silent console was a forced-override bug. TF-A hands RK3576’s BL32 no non-secure DT pointer, so the normal console probe never runs; needs CFG_EARLY_CONSOLE forced on (not just defaulted) and TF-A/OP-TEE agreeing on UART0.
• The OTP key is a one-way door, and it’s treated like one: ephemeral HUK by default, persistent fuse-burning gated behind an explicit off-by-default flag until the OTP index is confirmed — burn the wrong row and it’s permanent.
• Base platform support (#7821) is merged into mainline OP-TEE; the OTP key-derivation half (#7841) is still in review, split out deliberately so the irreversible part gets its own scrutiny.