[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <195c7961-92cc-b41d-52ba-383b10dd9c75@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:41:43 +0530
From: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
<agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
<konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] nvmem: sec-qfprom: Add Qualcomm secure QFPROM
support
On 7/28/2023 1:55 PM, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>
>
> On 7/27/2023 4:14 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24/07/2023 09:38, Komal Bajaj wrote:
>>> For some of the Qualcomm SoC's, it is possible that
>>> some of the fuse regions or entire qfprom region is
>>> protected from non-secure access. In such situations,
>>> Linux will have to use secure calls to read the region.
>>> With that motivation, add secure qfprom driver.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/nvmem/Kconfig | 13 +++++
>>> drivers/nvmem/Makefile | 2 +
>>> drivers/nvmem/sec-qfprom.c | 101
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 116 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/nvmem/sec-qfprom.c
>>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/sec-qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/sec-qfprom.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..bc68053b7d94
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/sec-qfprom.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2023, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights
>>> reserved.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#include <linux/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.h>
>>> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>>> +#include <linux/nvmem-provider.h>
>>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>>
>>> +
>>> +static int sec_qfprom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct nvmem_config econfig = {
>>> + .name = "sec-qfprom",
>>> + .stride = 1,
>>> + .word_size = 1,
>>> + .id = NVMEM_DEVID_AUTO,
>>> + .reg_read = sec_qfprom_reg_read,
>>> + };
>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + struct nvmem_device *nvmem;
>>> + struct sec_qfprom *priv;
>>> + struct resource *res;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!priv)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>>> + if (!res)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + priv->base = res->start;
>>> +
>>> + econfig.size = resource_size(res);
>>> + econfig.dev = dev;
>>> + econfig.priv = priv;
>>> +
>>> + priv->dev = dev;
>>> +
>>> + ret = devm_pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>
>> Any reason why we need to enable pm runtime for this driver? As Am
>> not seeing any pm runtime handlers or users in this driver.
>
> Thanks..
> Yes, it is not needed as of now..
> looks like, it got inherited from qfprom.c by mistake.
>
> Same need to be corrected in Device tree, if any
> unnecessary reference is there related to this..
Thanks for pointing it out.
Will drop it in the next patch series.
Thanks
Komal
>
> -Mukesh
>>
>>
>> --srini
>>> +
>>> + nvmem = devm_nvmem_register(dev, &econfig);
>>> +
>>> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(nvmem);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id sec_qfprom_of_match[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sec-qfprom" },
>>> + {/* sentinel */},
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sec_qfprom_of_match);
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_driver qfprom_driver = {
>>> + .probe = sec_qfprom_probe,
>>> + .driver = {
>>> + .name = "qcom_sec_qfprom",
>>> + .of_match_table = sec_qfprom_of_match,
>>> + },
>>> +};
>>> +module_platform_driver(qfprom_driver);
>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Qualcomm Secure QFPROM driver");
>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>> --
>>> 2.40.1
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists