[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DU0PR04MB9417C357D4A919288E4D42FA884A9@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 03:33:44 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
CC: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3] soc: imx: support i.MX93 soc device
Hi Shawn,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] soc: imx: support i.MX93 soc device
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 03:30:01PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 15/05/2023 08.37, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > >
> > > i.MX93 Device Unique ID(UID) is in eFuse that could be read through
> > > OCOTP Fuse Shadow Block. i.MX93 UID is 128 bits long, so introduce
> > > soc_uid_high to indicate the higher 64bits.
> >
> > So apparently, the imx8mp also has 128 bits, at least according to the
> > reference manual, which mentions a "UNIQUE_ID[127:64]" at offset 0xe00
> > -
> > 0xe10 (i.e. bank 40, words 0 and 1).
> >
> > However, no further mention of these upper bits can be found anywhere
> > in the RM, or in linux or u-boot, mainline or downstream NXP.
> > Furthermore, quick experiments on both an imx8mp-evk and a custom
> > imx8mp board reveals that those words are not locked down (they do
> > seem to have some contents from the factory, but I can still set more bits
> in them).
> >
> > Could someone from NXP please explain what exactly bank 40, words 0
> > and 1, on imx8mp are for? What do their initial value mean, why are
> > they not locked down, and why does the RM indicate that they should be
> > part of a unique_id?
> >
> > Also, assuming that the RM is just wrong (wouldn't be the first time;
> > the description of the lower 64 bits is also wonky in its own special
> > way), an obvious follow-up question is: Are the currently exposed
> > (lower) 64 bits unique among all imx8mp SOCs, i.e. does those 64 bits
> > by themselves actually work as a uid?
>
> Rasmus,
>
> Are you fine with the patch itself? Or do you expect more clarification in the
> commit log?
Rasmus's comments is for i.MX8MP, this patch is for i.MX93.
But anyway I just sent out V4 patch to address i.MX8MP support and
then add i.MX93 support.
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> Shawn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists