Re: [PATCHv3 1/6] firmware: stratix10-svc: add COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM flag

[Richard Gong]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Richard Gong <richard.gong@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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