linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: 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: <4jopw7qv2jlq7b5ljkxfhjjjdlqclruouentrvbjt43yybxyf6@qzsk4imnmq5m>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 10:37:15 -0500
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, robh@...nel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: Add qfprom node

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 08:21:58PM GMT, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:13:59PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > Sorry for the late reply, was on vacation.
> > 
> > On 3/6/2024 9:24 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 3/6/24 13:26, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > > Add the qfprom node for sm8450 SoC.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> > > >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > > index b86be34a912b..02089a388d03 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > > @@ -4575,6 +4575,13 @@
> > > >               };
> > > >           };
> > > > +        qfprom: efuse@...c8000 {
> > > > +            compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
> > > > +            reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>;
> > > 
> > > Is is really only 0x1000-long? Also, is the base you put
> > > here the ECC-corrected part (if that still exists)?
> > 
> > No, its not.
> > 
> > Entire fuse space is this.
> > 0x221C0000-0x221Cbfff
> > 
> > ECC corrected range is this 0x221C2000-0x221C3fff and High level OS
> 
> That's 0x2000. Does this then also imply that the ECC-corrected values
> are no longer mapped 1:1 with non-corrected, or why do they differ in
> size?
> 
> > does have a access to ECC range however, they are not recommended for
> > SW usage.
> > 
> > Above mentioned SW range(4) in the patch is  one and only accessible range
> > available out of 0-7 SW ranges(0x221C4000-0x221Cbfff with each
> > size 0x1000) and does not have ECC fuses.
> > 
> 
> So you're saying that in contrast to other platforms, the 4th software
> range, dedicated for HLOS, does not have a matching ECC-corrected
> shadow? If that's the case, then "not recommended for SW usage" sounds
> wrong.
> 
> > All the downstream use cases are getting fulfilled with this.
> > 
> 
> You only need ECC if you're unlucky...
> 

The patch is either incorrect or the commit message is lacking answers
to the questions from Konrad and myself.

Would have appreciated a reply here, but either way I'm marking this as
"changes requested" and dropping it from the queue.

Regards,
Bjorn