RE: [PATCH V3] soc: imx: support i.MX93 soc device

From: Peng Fan
Date: Wed May 24 2023 - 20:03:19 EST

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] soc: imx: support i.MX93 soc device
> On 15/05/2023 08.37, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <>
> >
> > i.MX93 Device Unique ID(UID) is in eFuse that could be read through
> > OCOTP Fuse Shadow Block. i.MX93 UID is 128 bits long, so introduce
> > soc_uid_high to indicate the higher 64bits.
> So apparently, the imx8mp also has 128 bits, at least according to the

It is 64bits. The RM maybe wrong.

> reference manual, which mentions a "UNIQUE_ID[127:64]" at offset 0xe00 -
> 0xe10 (i.e. bank 40, words 0 and 1).

Which chatper?
> However, no further mention of these upper bits can be found anywhere in
> the RM, or in linux or u-boot, mainline or downstream NXP. Furthermore,
> quick experiments on both an imx8mp-evk and a custom imx8mp board
> reveals that those words are not locked down (they do seem to have some
> contents from the factory, but I can still set more bits in them).
> Could someone from NXP please explain what exactly bank 40, words 0 and
> 1, on imx8mp are for? What do their initial value mean, why are they not
> locked down, and why does the RM indicate that they should be part of a
> unique_id?

RM should be wrong. UID is in Bank 0.

> Also, assuming that the RM is just wrong (wouldn't be the first time; the
> description of the lower 64 bits is also wonky in its own special way), an
> obvious follow-up question is: Are the currently exposed
> (lower) 64 bits unique among all imx8mp SOCs, i.e. does those 64 bits by
> themselves actually work as a uid?

Just as what the driver indicates, UID is at register address 0x420 and 0x430.

For bank 0x40, I could not reveal information if RM or Secure RM not say

You could raise tickets in to ask people follow up
on RM issue or else.


> Rasmus