linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq8074: add QFPROM node

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]

Message-ID: <ebdd9932-e251-0cd7-6c98-3c735ecb74a6@quicinc.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 Jan 2023 22:27:45 +0530
From:   Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <quic_kathirav@...cinc.com>
To:     Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>, <agross@...nel.org>,
        <andersson@...nel.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq8074: add QFPROM node


On 1/21/2023 4:53 PM, Robert Marko wrote:
> IPQ8074 has efuses like other Qualcomm SoC-s that are required for
> determining various HW quirks which will be required later for CPR etc,
> so lets add the QFPROM node for start.
>
> Individidual fuses will be added as they are required.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq8074.dtsi | 7 +++++++
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq8074.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq8074.dtsi
> index 8eba586065a3..f29491f647fe 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq8074.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq8074.dtsi
> @@ -301,6 +301,13 @@ mdio: mdio@...00 {
>   			status = "disabled";
>   		};
>   
> +		qfprom: efuse@...00 {
> +			compatible = "qcom,ipq8074-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
> +			reg = <0x000a4000 0x1000>;


 From the HW document, I see the overall size of this region is 0x2000, 
any reason to stick with 0x1000?

Thanks, Kathiravan T.


> +			#address-cells = <1>;
> +			#size-cells = <1>;
> +		};
> +
>   		prng: rng@...00 {
>   			compatible = "qcom,prng-ee";
>   			reg = <0x000e3000 0x1000>;