[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be816a6d-c4e6-4cf1-b5dd-fd59515a42ef@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:00:05 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Viken Dadhaniya <viken.dadhaniya@....qualcomm.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
konradybcio@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mukesh.savaliya@....qualcomm.com, anup.kulkarni@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arm64: dts: qcom: monaco-evk: Add firmware-name to
QUPv3 nodes
On 9/26/25 8:43 AM, Viken Dadhaniya wrote:
>
>
> On 9/25/2025 2:22 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 9/25/25 6:26 AM, Viken Dadhaniya wrote:
>>> Traditionally, firmware loading for Serial Engines (SE) in the QUP hardware
>>> of Qualcomm SoCs has been managed by TrustZone (TZ). While this approach
>>> ensures secure SE assignment and access control, it limits flexibility for
>>> developers who need to enable various protocols on different SEs.
>>>
>>> Add the firmware-name property to QUPv3 nodes in the device tree to enable
>>> firmware loading from the Linux environment. Handle SE assignments and
>>> access control permissions directly within Linux, removing the dependency
>>> on TrustZone.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Viken Dadhaniya <viken.dadhaniya@....qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Viken, you've posted a lot of patches like these lately for
>> specific boards.
>>
>> Should we instead push this to the SoC DTSI, to limit the boilerplate?
>
> The firmware load from Linux feature is applicable only to devkit boards
> (RB3 Gen2 and EVK), and therefore, it is being added exclusively to the
> board-specific device tree files.
Do we expect GENI_SE_INVALID_PROTO to ever show up on hardware that
can't make use of fw loading though?
>> If I recall correctly, you said these ELFs are not vendor-signed, so
>> it should be OK to have them be assigned globally
>>
>
> This feature is intended solely for use with the development kit and is not
> intended for commercialization. Therefore, vendor sign-off is currently not
> applicable.
Well you conveniently never really mentioned this in the driver patchset..
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists