RE: [PATCH V4 1/2] soc: imx: Correct i.MX8MP soc device

[Peng Fan]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] soc: imx: Correct i.MX8MP soc device
> 
> On 29/05/2023 05.37, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > i.MX8MP UID is actually 128bits and partitioned into two parts, with
> > 1st 64bits at 0x410 and 0x420, with 2nd 64bits at 0xE00 and 0xE10.
> >
> > So introduce soc_uid_h for the higher 64bits
> 
> Interestingly, reaching out to our NXP sales rep asking for clarification
> resulted in:
> 
>   On i.MX 8MP Unique ID is 64 bits. Please see here:
> 
> 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithu
> b.com%2Fnxp-imx%2Fuboot-
> imx%2Fblob%2Flf_v2022.04%2Farch%2Farm%2Fmach-
> imx%2Fimx8m%2Fsoc.c%23L752&data=05%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com
> %7Cc6ca2761f8144f3f78d008db60e4bfe0%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c
> 301635%7C0%7C0%7C638210307846757073%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
> %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LTdrBwhNesEEfrcvmw0zV0hA08SbX6ZMI
> qPppwWQ5nk%3D&reserved=0

U-Boot only supports 64bits for now.
struct tag_serialnr {
        u32 low;
        u32 high;
};

> 
> So could you guys (and here I'm referring to everybody with an @nxp.com
> email) internally _please_ talk to each other and figure out what's what.
> 
> And, again assuming that the UID is really 128 bits, nobody has yet
> answered why the upper 64 bits are not locked down, nor what
> would/could happen if the end user/customer modifies those bits.
> 
> > Fixes: 18f662a73862 ("soc: imx: Add i.MX8MP SoC driver support")
> > Reported-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> That's true.
> 
> > Closes:
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore
> > .kernel.org%2Fall%2Ffe5e2b36-6a8e-656c-a4a6-
> 13a47f4871af%40prevas.dk%2
> >
> F&data=05%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7Cc6ca2761f8144f3f78d008db
> 60e4bfe0
> > %7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C63821030784675
> 7073%7CUnk
> >
> nown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I
> k1haWw
> >
> iLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FqgRvctzHuImX8tFkF3zasB
> mnyG0Uc12
> > fA38i0Pxwus%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Not at all. We (anybody outside nxp.com, and from what I can tell, probably
> quite a few people inside) still lack a complete explanation for this whole
> mess - why does the RM say one thing, which gets repeated by NXP
> TechSupport in a community forum, while a sales representative asserts
> that the current code (in both mainline and downstream linux and
> u-boot) is correct, and now you claim that in fact the current code is not
> correct.

What I checked was just RM and fuse map.

Let me try to reach to the lead of the i.MX8MP project and back if any
information.

Regards,
Peng.

> 
> Rasmus