Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv3 1/6] firmware: stratix10-svc: add COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM flag | From | Richard Gong <> | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:05:41 -0600 |
| |
Hi Greg,
Thanks for review!
On 1/27/21 6:04 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:56:23PM -0600, richard.gong@linux.intel.com wrote: >> From: Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com> >> >> Add COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM command flag for new added bitstream >> authentication feature. Authenticating a bitstream is to make sure a signed >> bitstream has the valid signatures. >> >> Except for the actual configuration of the device, the bitstream >> authentication works the same way as FPGA configuration does. If the >> authentication passes, the signed bitstream will be programmed into QSPI >> flash memory and will be expected to boot without issues. >> >> Clean up COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL flag by resetting it to 0, which >> aligns with the firmware settings. >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com> >> --- >> v3: no change >> v2: new added >> --- >> include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h | 11 ++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h b/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h >> index ebc2956..7ada1f2 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h >> +++ b/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h >> @@ -51,12 +51,17 @@ >> #define SVC_STATUS_NO_SUPPORT 6 >> >> /* >> - * Flag bit for COMMAND_RECONFIG >> + * Flag for COMMAND_RECONFIG, in bit number >> * >> * COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL: >> - * Set to FPGA configuration type (full or partial). >> + * Set for partial FPGA configuration. >> + * >> + * COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM: >> + * Set for bitstream authentication, which makes sure a signed bitstream >> + * has valid signatures before committing it to QSPI flash memory. >> */ >> -#define COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL 1 >> +#define COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL 0 > > So is this a bugfix, changing this value to the correct one?
Yes, it is a bug fix. > > If so, shouldn't this be a stand-alone patch and get backported to > stable kernel releases?
Sure, I will make change and submit again as a standalone patch.
> > If not, then no one uses this flag today? > > thanks, > > greg k-h > Regards, Richard
| |