[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f8caa9aa-7fc4-4d42-9011-21ca40eb106d@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:09:15 -0700
From: Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...il.com>,
Melody Olvera
<quic_molvera@...cinc.com>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org>,
Souradeep Chowdhury
<quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Rob
Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor
Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala"
<quic_satyap@...cinc.com>,
Elson Serrao <quic_eserrao@...cinc.com>
CC: <cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Update compatible
strings for eud
On 8/14/2024 1:25 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> Unfortunately, no. We considered several options, but none guarantee that we will avoid
>> a crash if we try non-securely. The secure call also won't give a specific error if it fails either
>> (for security reasons) so we can't know if a secure access failed because it's supposed to be
>> accessed non-securely or for another reason; hence this approach. If there's
>> another way to achieve this functionality that might be better, I'm all ears.
> Can we read some fuse values and decide based on that?
In most of the cases, these fuse values are not allowed to be read
from the Linux, so that will be another problem. Melody can check
if there is any fuse values around here and possible to read them
through Linux.
--
---Trilok Soni
Powered by blists - more mailing lists