Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:40:39 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] nvmem: sec-qfprom: Add Qualcomm secure QFPROM support | From | Komal Bajaj <> |
| |
On 7/31/2023 10:05 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:09:07PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: >> On 7/24/2023 2:08 PM, Komal Bajaj wrote: > [..] >>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/Makefile b/drivers/nvmem/Makefile >>> index f82431ec8aef..e248d3daadf3 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/nvmem/Makefile >>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/Makefile >>> @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NVMEM_NINTENDO_OTP) += nvmem-nintendo-otp.o >>> nvmem-nintendo-otp-y := nintendo-otp.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM) += nvmem_qfprom.o >>> nvmem_qfprom-y := qfprom.o >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM) += nvmem_sec_qfprom.o >>> +nvmem_sec_qfprom-y := sec-qfprom.o >> Are we just doing this for just renaming the object ? >> > Correct. > >>> obj-$(CONFIG_NVMEM_RAVE_SP_EEPROM) += nvmem-rave-sp-eeprom.o >>> nvmem-rave-sp-eeprom-y := rave-sp-eeprom.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM) += nvmem-rmem.o >>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/sec-qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/sec-qfprom.c > [..] >>> +static int sec_qfprom_reg_read(void *context, unsigned int reg, void *_val, size_t bytes) >>> +{ >>> + struct sec_qfprom *priv = context; >>> + unsigned int i; >>> + u8 *val = _val; >>> + u32 read_val; >>> + u8 *tmp; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i < bytes; i++, reg++) { >>> + if (i == 0 || reg % 4 == 0) { >>> + if (qcom_scm_io_readl(priv->base + (reg & ~3), &read_val)) { >>> + dev_err(priv->dev, "Couldn't access fuse register\n"); >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + tmp = (u8 *)&read_val; >>> + } >>> + >>> + val[i] = tmp[reg & 3]; >>> + } >> Getting secure read from fuse region is fine here, since we have to read >> 4 byte from trustzone, but this restriction of reading is also there >> for sm8{4|5}50 soc's where byte by byte reading is protected and granularity >> set to 4 byte (qfprom_reg_read() in drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c) >> is will result in abort, in that case this function need to export this >> logic. >> > If qfprom needs similar treatment, then let's land this first and then > consider generalizing (i.e. move to some library code) this - or if > infeasible, just fix qfprom_reg_read().
Agree, I will implement this logic into qfprom driver (into qfprom_reg_read() ) in a separate patch.
Thanks Komal > > Regards, > Bjorn
| |