[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24276cd6-df21-4592-85df-2779c6c30d51@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:16:23 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: "Gaurav Kashyap (QUIC)" <quic_gaurkash@...cinc.com>,
"neil.armstrong@...aro.org" <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"andersson@...nel.org" <andersson@...nel.org>,
"ebiggers@...gle.com" <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
"srinivas.kandagatla" <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel <kernel@...cinc.com>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"Om Prakash Singh (QUIC)" <quic_omprsing@...cinc.com>,
"Bao D. Nguyen (QUIC)" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>,
"bartosz.golaszewski" <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
"konrad.dybcio@...aro.org" <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"mani@...nel.org" <mani@...nel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>, Sonal Gupta <sonalg@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] soc: qcom: ice: add hwkm support in ice
On 19/06/2024 00:08, Gaurav Kashyap (QUIC) wrote:
>>
>> You may perhaps only call qcom_scm_derive_sw_secret_available() for
>> some ICE versions.
>>
>> Neil
>
> The issue here is that for the same ICE version, based on the chipset,
> there might be different configurations.
That's not what your DTS said. To remind: your DTS said that all SM8550
and all SM8650 have it. Choice is obvious then: it's deducible from
compatible.
I still do not understand why your call cannot return you correct
"configuration".
>
> Is it acceptable to use the addressable size from DTSI instead?
> Meaning, if it 0x8000, it would take the legacy route, and only when it has been
> updated to 0x10000, we would use HWKM and wrapped keys.
No.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists