Message-ID: <56968596.2070105@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:12:54 +0200
From:	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	"H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>,
	Gražvydas Ignotas <notasas@...il.com>,
	Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: omap5-board-common: enable rtc and charging
 of backup battery

On 01/13/2016 06:48 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com> [160113 07:15]:
>> On 01/13/2016 04:55 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 01/13/2016 04:25 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder now what MODE1 is.
>>>>
>>>> In my OMAP5 TRM (Version "Y" - may be too old) the MODE1 is tagged as "reserved".
>>>>
>>>> Maybe "reserved" happens to output a "1" on OMAP5 and a "0" on the X15?
> 
> The 5430 data manual I listed in the commit states mode 1 is for
> msecure. It is unlikely it got changed for 5432 as the mux registers
> tend to stay the same for most part across a SoC generation with just
> devices being enabled or disabled.
> 
> For beagle-x15, the msecure is now called "powerhold" and seems to
> have some additional or different functionality in the PMIC. So
> that's a separate issue from this one.
> 
>>>> And as far as I am aware there is no "driver" for some MSECURE module (but I don't know the details of MSECURE control by software).
>>>http://omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=commitdiff;h=a7a516be9338eabc9a7682e7433fa34d86c1f208
>>> Good catch. This one is interesting. If my memory serves me right,
>>> MSECURE signal from SoC is triggered in secure mode (trustzone) - the
>>> requirement was that certain PMIC modifications should only be done in
>>> secure mode for certain product applications. What this means is that
>>> certain functions of the PMIC will be unavailable when the SoC is
>>> running in "untrusted" mode.
>>>
>>> Instead, the usual mode of operation is to set it up as GPIO (as Nikolas
>>> pointed below) and either use GPIO HOG or default weak pull to keep it
>>> in the required state.
>>>
>>> I think it is better to set it as GPIO than as DRM_MSECURE.
> 
> Well we do have the data manual saying it's the msecure pin, and
> we are muxing it to msecure for omap4 in twl6030_omap4.dtsi. And a
> TI commit has used msecure mode for GP omap5 evm at least here:
> 
> https://gitlab.com/ubuntu-omap/u-boot-omap5/commit/dcc5279ffe880e874abb4d7f95302a34ab4968ca
> 
> I've added Keerthy to Cc, maybe he knows how this should be handled
> in the long run?
> 
> So if we start changing things to GPIO mode, we really need some
> further explanations and neeed to handle the GPIO pin properly in
> the TWL driver. And it should be done in a separate patch for all
> of the TWL SoCs.
> 
>>> This is probably also the reason why this mode is NOT in public TRM -
>>> all security related topics are probably in the NDA only secure TRM
>>> addendum.
> 
> Right, probably the msecure pin has been set reserved in the public TRM
> because of whatever NDA reasons there might be to not allow writes to RTC.
> 
>>> I'd suggest setting up a GPIO hog and a mux to GPIO for board-common (we
>>> are not doing any HS OMAP5 at least in public domain :) ).
>>
>> Yeah. As I remember the same issue was with OMAP4 (twl6030_omap4.dtsi)
>> and, again if i remember correctly, someone reported that sys_drm_msecure might have different values
>> on different SoCs. Also I'd like to note that on Old non-DT kernel such functionality
>> was always modeled using GPIO.
> 
> Care to dig up some more information on that?

i can't find this report, sry - as i remember there was difference
between some OMAP4 HS and GP SoCs. 

But links on commits for old 3.4 kernel below:
http://omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=commitdiff;h=a7a516be9338eabc9a7682e7433fa34d86c1f208
http://omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=commitdiff;h=262669aebf4af4044a25e8292f0e27986e18445a

> 
> I don't have anything against adding GPIO handling to the TWL driver
> so it can be optionally specified. But that's clearly a separate patch
> and should be done by somebody who knows more about the issue and has
> a test case needing the GPIO logic for this pin.
> 


-- 
regards,
-grygorii

Powered by blists - more mailing lists