Re: [PATCH v4] mmc: sdhci-msm: Enable ICE support for non-cmdq eMMC devices

From: Md Sadre Alam

Date: Thu Nov 13 2025 - 02:11:40 EST


Hi,

On 11/12/2025 2:22 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 04:16:04PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
Enable Inline Crypto Engine (ICE) support for eMMC devices that operate
without Command Queue Engine (CQE).This allows hardware-accelerated
encryption and decryption for standard (non-CMDQ) requests.

This patch:
- Adds ICE register definitions for non-CMDQ crypto configuration
- Implements a per-request crypto setup via sdhci_msm_ice_cfg()
- Hooks into the request path via mmc_host_ops.request

With this, non-CMDQ eMMC devices can benefit from inline encryption,
improving performance for encrypted I/O while maintaining compatibility
with existing CQE crypto support.

This really should explain that this patch actually applies only to host
controllers that *do* support CQE. Just they are using a card that
doesn't support CQE or CQE was explicitly disabled. Right?
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing this out - the commit message should be clearer about this important detail.

This patch applies specifically to CQE-capable host controllers (sdhci-msm controllers that support CQHCI) when they are operating in non-CQE mode.
This can happen in two scenarios:

1. CQE-capable controller + non-CQE card: The host controller supports CQE, but the eMMC card doesn't support Command Queue Engine
2. CQE explicitly disabled: The host controller and card both support CQE, but CQE has been explicitly disabled (e.g., via device tree)

For the 2nd case I will post another path which will handle host side
CQE enable/disable.

+static void sdhci_msm_non_cqe_ice_init(struct sdhci_host *host)
+{
+ struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
+ struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
+ struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
+ struct cqhci_host *cq_host = mmc->cqe_private;
+ u32 config;
+ u32 ice_cap;
+
+ config = sdhci_readl(host, HC_VENDOR_SPECIFIC_FUNC4);
+ config &= ~DISABLE_CRYPTO;
+ sdhci_writel(host, config, HC_VENDOR_SPECIFIC_FUNC4);
+ ice_cap = cqhci_readl(cq_host, CQHCI_CAP);
+ if (ice_cap & ICE_HCI_SUPPORT) {
+ config = cqhci_readl(cq_host, CQHCI_CFG);
+ config |= CRYPTO_GENERAL_ENABLE;
+ cqhci_writel(cq_host, config, CQHCI_CFG);
+ }
+ sdhci_msm_ice_enable(msm_host);
+}
+
+static int sdhci_msm_ice_cfg(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_request *mrq)
+{
+ struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
+ struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
+ struct mmc_host *mmc = msm_host->mmc;
+ struct cqhci_host *cq_host = mmc->cqe_private;
+ unsigned int crypto_params = 0;
+ int key_index;
+ bool crypto_enable;
+ u64 dun = 0;
+
+ if (mrq->crypto_ctx) {
+ if (!msm_host->ice_init_done) {
+ sdhci_msm_non_cqe_ice_init(host);
+ msm_host->ice_init_done = true;
+ }

This means sdhci_msm_ice_enable() is called only once per host
controller. It looks like the existing call to sdhci_msm_ice_enable()
happens each time after the host controller is resumed. So there seems
to be an inconsistency there. Which way is correct?
Thank you for highlighting this. After revisiting the code paths, I believe the behavior is consistent across both CQE and non-CQE modes.
ICE is re-enabled on every resume via the common sdhci_msm_runtime_resume() → sdhci_msm_ice_resume() → qcom_ice_resume() → sdhci_msm_ice_enable() path.
The ice_init_done flag only governs one-time initialization in sdhci_msm_ice_cfg() and doesn’t interfere with the resume logic.

In summary:
CQE mode: ICE enabled during sdhci_msm_cqe_enable() + every resume
Non-CQE mode: ICE enabled on first crypto request + every resume

+ } else {
+ crypto_enable = false;
+ key_index = 0;
+ cqhci_writel(cq_host, crypto_params, NONCQ_CRYPTO_PARM);

The values assigned to 'crypto_enable' and 'key_index' are never used.
Ok, will remove in next revision.

+static void sdhci_msm_request(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_request *mrq)
+{

Could you leave a comment here that notes this is used only for non-CQE
requests and that crypto on CQE requests is handled elsewhere?
Thank you very much — that’s a valuable suggestion. Adding a comment will make the code much clearer. Will add in next revision.

Thanks,
Alam.