linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6125: Add UFS nodes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2023 13:04:08 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Lux Aliaga <they@...t.lgbt>, agross@...nel.org,
        andersson@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
        kishon@...nel.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com,
        bvanassche@....org, keescook@...omium.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        gpiccoli@...lia.com
Cc:     ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, martin.botka@...ainline.org,
        marijn.suijten@...ainline.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6125: Add UFS nodes



On 11.01.2023 03:53, Lux Aliaga wrote:
> 
> On 09/01/2023 09:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>> On 8.01.2023 20:53, Lux Aliaga wrote:
>>> Adds a UFS host controller node and its corresponding PHY to
>>> the sm6125 platform.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lux Aliaga <they@...t.lgbt>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>> index df5453fcf2b9..cec7071d5279 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>> @@ -511,6 +511,63 @@ sdhc_2: mmc@...4000 {
>>>               status = "disabled";
>>>           };
>>>   +        ufs_mem_hc: ufs@...4000 {
>>> +            compatible = "qcom,sm6125-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0";
>>> +            reg = <0x04804000 0x3000>, <0x04810000 0x8000>;
>> You need reg-names for ICE to probe, otherwise the second reg sits unused.
>>
>>> +            interrupts = <GIC_SPI 356 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> +            phys = <&ufs_mem_phy>;
>>> +            phy-names = "ufsphy";
>>> +            lanes-per-direction = <1>;
>>> +            #reset-cells = <1>;
>>> +            resets = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_BCR>;
>>> +            reset-names = "rst";
>>> +            iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x200 0x0>;
>>> +
>>> +            clock-names = "core_clk",
>>> +                      "bus_aggr_clk",
>>> +                      "iface_clk",
>>> +                      "core_clk_unipro",
>>> +                      "ref_clk",
>>> +                      "tx_lane0_sync_clk",
>>> +                      "rx_lane0_sync_clk",
>>> +                      "ice_core_clk";
>>> +            clocks = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
>>> +                 <&gcc GCC_SYS_NOC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
>>> +                 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AHB_CLK>,
>>> +                 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_UNIPRO_CORE_CLK>,
>>> +                 <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>,
>>> +                 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_TX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>,
>>> +                 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_RX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>,
>>> +                 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_ICE_CORE_CLK>;
>>> +            freq-table-hz = <50000000 240000000>,
>>> +                    <0 0>,
>>> +                    <0 0>,
>>> +                    <37500000 150000000>,
>>> +                    <0 0>,
>>> +                    <0 0>,
>>> +                    <0 0>,
>>> +                    <75000000 300000000>;
>>> +
>>> +            status = "disabled";
>>> +        };
>>> +
>>> +        ufs_mem_phy: phy@...7000 {
>>> +            compatible = "qcom,sm6125-qmp-ufs-phy";
>>> +            reg = <0x04807000 0x1c4>;
>> Isn't this too small? Downstream says 0xdb8, but it's probably even bigger..
> What do you think could help me find the new length of the registers? I tried 0x1000 and it probed just fine, but I'm not really sure until what extent I could push it.
The "true" values are probably only in documentation, which
I don't have.

Konrad
>