Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw binding doc

[Conor Dooley]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:21:37AM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> The NXP security hardware IP(s) like: i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, V2X etc.,
> creates an embedded secure enclave within the SoC boundary to enable
> features like:
> - HSM
> - SHE
> - V2X
> 
> Secure-Enclave(s) communication interface are typically via message
> unit, i.e., based on mailbox linux kernel driver. This driver enables
> communication ensuring well defined message sequence protocol between
> Application Core and enclave's firmware.
> 
> Driver configures multiple misc-device on the MU, for multiple
> user-space applications, to be able to communicate over single MU.
> 
> It exists on some i.MX processors. e.g. i.MX8ULP, i.MX93 etc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml   | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 91 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7511d0e9cf98
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: NXP i.MX HW Secure Enclave(s) EdgeLock Enclave
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> +
> +description: |
> +  NXP's SoC may contain one or multiple embedded secure-enclave HW
> +  IP(s) like i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, V2X etc. These NXP's HW IP(s)
> +  enables features like
> +    - Hardware Security Module (HSM),
> +    - Security Hardware Extension (SHE), and
> +    - Vehicular to Anything (V2X)
> +
> +  Communication interface to the secure-enclaves(se) is based on the
> +  messaging unit(s).
> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - fsl,imx8ulp-se
> +      - fsl,imx93-se
> +      - fsl,imx95-se
> +
> +  mboxes:
> +    items:
> +      - description: mailbox phandle to send message to se firmware
> +      - description: mailbox phandle to receive message from se firmware
> +
> +  mbox-names:
> +    items:
> +      - const: tx
> +      - const: rx
> +
> +  memory-region:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  sram:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - mboxes
> +  - mbox-names
> +
> +allOf:
> +  # memory-region
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            enum:
> +              - fsl,imx8ulp-se
> +              - fsl,imx93-se
> +    then:
> +      required:
> +        - memory-region
> +    else:
> +      properties:
> +        memory-region: false
> +
> +  # sram
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            enum:
> +              - fsl,imx8ulp-se
> +    then:
> +      required:
> +        - sram
> +
> +    else:
> +      properties:
> +        sram: false
> +
> +additionalProperties: false
> +
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    senclave-firmware {

Last revision this was "firmware", but now you've got something that
appears non-generic. Why did you change it? The normal differentiator for
multiple nodes is -[0-9]*, why can't you use that, if you're worried
about multiple nodes?

> +      compatible = "fsl,imx95-se";
> +      mboxes = <&ele_mu0 0 0>, <&ele_mu0 1 0>;
> +      mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> +    };
> +...
> 
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature