lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-mtp: Relocate remoteproc firmware
On Wed 25 Mar 14:54 PDT 2020, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:13 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:09 AM Bjorn Andersson
> > <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Update the firmware-name of the remoteproc nodes to mimic the firmware
> > > structure on other 845 devices.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply, I only came across this one while going
> > through the pull requests
> > that we had failed to pick up earlier.
> >
> > I really dislike the idea of hardcoding a firmware name in the
> > devicetree, we had long
> > discussions about this a few years ago and basically concluded that the firmware
> > name needs to be generated by the driver after identifying the hardware itself.
> >
> > The problem is that the firmware generally needs to match both the device driver
> > and the hardware, so when there is a firmware update that changes the behavior
> > (intentionally or not) in a way the driver needs to know about, then
> > the driver should
> > be able to request a particular firmware file based on information
> > that the owner
> > of the dtb may not have.
>
> Interesting, this intersects some work I plan on doing.
>
> What level information did this discussion assume that the device
> driver had? Do you have a reference to the discussion handy?
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to assume that for
> device X, there is one firmware at a specific version that the driver
> is then knowledgeable about, and the driver can query the device
> hardware in some way to determine what is appropriate. It seems like
> this assumption is believed to hold true, no matter what system X is
> included in.
>
> I think we have the problem where likely impossible that the driver
> will know what firmware is valid.
>
> Qualcomm, for better or worse, has a signing process for their images.
> This establishes a root a trust which is enforced by hardware. For
> example, the Modem subsystem (the part of the SoC that talks to cell
> towers and such) will not run an image which is not properly signed.
> The valid signature is burned into the chip.
>
> "Surely there is one signed image for a particular modem on a specific SoC?"
> Sadly, no. The OEM is allowed to provide their own key. This may be
> a key which is specific to the device (Ie the Brand XYZ Model 123
> phone). Therefore, that device will only run the firmware that
> contains that OEM's signature, even if the actual code happens to be
> identical to what every other OEM has.
>

And generally your XYZ 123 might come in different SKUs that might or
might not vary in software and hardware features; so for some products
the driver should know that it can use the "generic" XYZ 123 firmware
and in others it needs to know that it should be looking for the XYZ 123
firmware for, say, the Japanese market (different hardware).

> For some SoCs which go into multiple products, there seem to be
> several OEMs which are willing to allow the firmware to be included in
> the linux-firmware project. Therefore, it is likely that there will
> be multiple copies of the Modem image for the 845 SoC (for example) in
> /lib/firmware. In this case, it seems like your recommendation is
> that the driver should somehow detect that it is running on device 123
> and not device 456, and therefore be able to request the device 123
> specific firmware.
>

And in the past I've worked on products where product 123, 456 and 789
had the same firmware, but on some particular market all three used a
market-specific firmware and in some cases two of them existed in a WiFi
only variant.

> I don't know how the device driver is supposed to make that
> determination, and its my opinion that the driver shouldn't be. Other
> than the need to have the correct firmware, which is tied to the
> specific device, I'm not aware of an instance where a driver cares
> about anything more than the hardware revision of the block it drives.

Looking at the particular problem it's not the revision of the hardware
block(s) that the remoteproc interacts with that determines any of this.

E.g. the modem subsystem is the same on Dragonboard845c with WiFi-only
as it is on the Lenovo Yoga C630 with or without LTE - but we still need
some mechanism to determine which of the 3 firmware files to pick.

Regards,
Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-26 01:37    [W:0.050 / U:2.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site