[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlBtNSeh2VyZsVxq@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 12:34:29 +0200
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] firmware: imx: add driver for NXP EdgeLock Enclave
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:19:35PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> NXP hardware IP(s) for secure-enclaves like Edgelock Enclave(ELE),
> are embedded in the SoC to support the features like HSM, SHE & V2X,
> using message based communication interface.
>
> The secure enclave FW communicates on a dedicated messaging unit(MU)
> based interface(s) with application core, where kernel is running.
> It exists on specific i.MX processors. e.g. i.MX8ULP, i.MX93.
>
> This patch adds the driver for communication interface to secure-enclave,
> for exchanging messages with NXP secure enclave HW IP(s) like EdgeLock
> Enclave (ELE) from Kernel-space, used by kernel management layers like
> - DM-Crypt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/imx/Kconfig | 12 +
> drivers/firmware/imx/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.c | 286 +++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.h | 92 +++++++
> drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.c | 239 ++++++++++++++++
> drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.h | 43 +++
> drivers/firmware/imx/se_ctrl.c | 531 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/firmware/imx/se_ctrl.h | 99 +++++++
> include/linux/firmware/imx/se_api.h | 14 +
> 9 files changed, 1318 insertions(+)
>
> +static int se_probe_if_cleanup(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct se_if_priv *priv;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + if (!priv) {
> + ret = 0;
> + dev_dbg(dev, "SE-MU Priv data is NULL;");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (priv->tx_chan)
> + mbox_free_channel(priv->tx_chan);
> + if (priv->rx_chan)
> + mbox_free_channel(priv->rx_chan);
> +
> + /* free the buffer in se remove, previously allocated
> + * in se probe to store encrypted IMEM
> + */
> + if (priv->imem.buf) {
> + dmam_free_coherent(dev,
> + ELE_IMEM_SIZE,
> + priv->imem.buf,
> + priv->imem.phyaddr);
> + priv->imem.buf = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + if (priv->flags & RESERVED_DMA_POOL) {
> + of_reserved_mem_device_release(dev);
You can call this unconditionally, no need to keep track if you called
of_reserved_mem_device_init() successfully.
> +
> +static int se_if_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct imx_se_node_info_list *info_list;
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct imx_se_node_info *info;
> + struct se_if_priv *priv;
> + u32 idx;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "reg", &idx)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto exit;
> + }
> +
> + info_list = (struct imx_se_node_info_list *)
> + device_get_match_data(dev);
> + info = get_imx_se_node_info(info_list, idx);
> +
> + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!priv) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto exit;
> + }
> +
> + dev_set_drvdata(dev, priv);
> +
> + /* Mailbox client configuration */
> + priv->se_mb_cl.dev = dev;
> + priv->se_mb_cl.tx_block = false;
> + priv->se_mb_cl.knows_txdone = true;
> + priv->se_mb_cl.rx_callback = se_if_rx_callback;
> +
> + ret = se_if_request_channel(dev, &priv->tx_chan,
> + &priv->se_mb_cl, info->mbox_tx_name);
> + if (ret)
> + goto exit;
> +
> + ret = se_if_request_channel(dev, &priv->rx_chan,
> + &priv->se_mb_cl, info->mbox_rx_name);
> + if (ret)
> + goto exit;
> +
> + priv->dev = dev;
> + priv->info = info;
> +
> + /* Initialize the mutex. */
> + mutex_init(&priv->se_if_lock);
> + mutex_init(&priv->se_if_cmd_lock);
> +
> + priv->cmd_receiver_dev = NULL;
> + priv->waiting_rsp_dev = NULL;
> + priv->max_dev_ctx = info->max_dev_ctx;
> + priv->cmd_tag = info->cmd_tag;
> + priv->rsp_tag = info->rsp_tag;
> + priv->mem_pool_name = info->pool_name;
> + priv->success_tag = info->success_tag;
> + priv->base_api_ver = info->base_api_ver;
> + priv->fw_api_ver = info->fw_api_ver;
> +
> + init_completion(&priv->done);
> + spin_lock_init(&priv->lock);
> +
> + if (info->reserved_dma_ranges) {
> + ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init(dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev,
> + "failed to init reserved memory region %d\n",
> + ret);
> + priv->flags &= (~RESERVED_DMA_POOL);
> + goto exit;
> + }
> + priv->flags |= RESERVED_DMA_POOL;
> + }
Can't this be optional? Why do you need to reserve memory in the device
tree for it?
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists