Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] arm64: dts: imx93-11x11-evk: added nxp secure enclave fw

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/08/2023 13:49, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pankaj Gupta
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 5:04 PM
>> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>;
>> shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> clin@xxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx; Jacky Bai
>> <ping.bai@xxxxxxx>; Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx>; Wei Fang
>> <wei.fang@xxxxxxx>; Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>; Bough Chen
>> <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>; festevam@xxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx <linux-
>> imx@xxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gaurav Jain
>> <gaurav.jain@xxxxxxx>; alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sahil Malhotra
>> <sahil.malhotra@xxxxxxx>; Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx>; Varun
>> Sethi <V.Sethi@xxxxxxx>
>> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] arm64: dts: imx93-11x11-evk: added
>> nxp secure enclave fw
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 12:38 AM
>>> To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx;
>>> s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; clin@xxxxxxxx;
>>> conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx; Jacky Bai
>>> <ping.bai@xxxxxxx>; Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx>; Wei Fang
>>> <wei.fang@xxxxxxx>; Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>; Bough Chen
>>> <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>; festevam@xxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx <linux-
>>> imx@xxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
>>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
>>> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gaurav Jain
>>> <gaurav.jain@xxxxxxx>; alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sahil Malhotra
>>> <sahil.malhotra@xxxxxxx>; Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx>;
>> Varun
>>> Sethi <V.Sethi@xxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] arm64: dts: imx93-11x11-evk: added
>>> nxp secure enclave fw
>>>
>>> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking
>>> links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using
>>> the 'Report this email' button
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/07/2023 14:12, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>>> Added support for NXP secure enclave called EdgeLock Enclave
>>>> firmware
>>>> (se-fw) for imx93-11x11-evk.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93.dtsi | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93.dtsi
>>>> index 8643612ace8c..2b0f901d2709 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93.dtsi
>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>>>>  // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
>>>>  /*
>>>> - * Copyright 2022 NXP
>>>> + * Copyright 2022-2023 NXP
>>>>   */
>>>>
>>>>  #include <dt-bindings/clock/imx93-clock.h> @@ -863,5 +863,14 @@
>>>> ddr-pmu@4e300dc0 {
>>>>                       reg = <0x4e300dc0 0x200>;
>>>>                       interrupts = <GIC_SPI 90 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>>>               };
>>>> +
>>>> +             ele_fw: se-fw {
>>>> +                     compatible = "fsl,imx93-ele";
>>>> +                     mboxes = <&s4muap 0 0 &s4muap 1 0>;
>>>
>>> This should be two entries.
>>>
>>>> +                     mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>>>> +                     fsl,mu-did = <3>;
>>>> +                     fsl,mu-id = <2>;
>>>
>>> Drop both. Since you put it into the DTSI, it means it is compatible specific.
>> [Pankaj] Removed the above three entries.
> 
> 
> [Pankaj] Correction: 
> I missed to note that in our up-coming SoC(s), there will be multiple MU(s):
> Those can only be identified using mu_id. Hence, following two only, will be removed:
> +                     mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> +                     fsl,mu-did = <3>;

Which SoC? How the bindings are going to look like for that SoC? What is
mu-did in such case and how does it relate to different mailboxes? Why
it cannot be inferred from compatible?

BTW, responding three weeks after my review does not help your case. I
totally loose the context. Of course you can reply even after 1 year,
it's your right, but it does not help the discussion.

Best regards,
Krzysztof