Re: [PATCH v26 3/7] firmware: imx: add driver for NXP EdgeLock Enclave

[Lothar Waßmann]

Hi,

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:51:59 +0530 pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Add MU-based communication interface for secure enclave.
> 
> NXP hardware IP(s) for secure-enclaves like Edgelock Enclave(ELE), are
> embedded in the SoC to support the features like HSM, SHE & V2X, using
> message based communication interface.
> 
> The secure enclave FW communicates with Linux over single or multiple
> dedicated messaging unit(MU) based interface(s).
> Exists on i.MX SoC(s) like i.MX8ULP, i.MX93, i.MX95 etc.
> 
> For i.MX9x SoC(s) there is at least one dedicated ELE MU(s) for each
> world - Linux(one or more) and OPTEE-OS (one or more).
> 
[...]
> +	ret = se_fill_cmd_msg_hdr(priv, (struct se_msg_hdr *)&tx_msg->header,
> +				  ELE_GET_INFO_REQ, ELE_GET_INFO_REQ_MSG_SZ,
> +				  true);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto exit;
[...]
> +/* Fill a command message header with a given command ID and length in bytes. */
> +static inline int se_fill_cmd_msg_hdr(struct se_if_priv *priv, struct se_msg_hdr *hdr,
> +				      u8 cmd, u32 len, bool is_base_api)
> +{
> +	hdr->tag = priv->if_defs->cmd_tag;
> +	hdr->ver = (is_base_api) ? priv->if_defs->base_api_ver : priv->if_defs->fw_api_ver;
> +	hdr->command = cmd;
> +	hdr->size = len >> 2;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
>
I don't see a point in having a function always return zero and
implement error checks that will never be used.

[...]
> +static const struct of_device_id se_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-se-ele-hsm", .data = &imx8ulp_se_ele_hsm},
> +	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx93-se-ele-hsm", .data = &imx93_se_ele_hsm},
> +	{},
>
Since the last entry in this array must be a NULL entry, there should be
no comma after the {}. This will generate a compile error if (e.g. by
patch conflict resolution) an entry is added after the end marker.



Lothar Waßmann