[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/8] dt-bindings: misc: add property to support non-secure DSP
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:35:40PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 13/12/2021 10:57, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 12:06:23PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > > From: Jeya R <>
> > >
> > > Add property to set DSP domain as non-secure.
> > >
> > > ADSP/MDSP/SDSP are by default secured, where as CDSP can be either be
> > > secured/unsecured.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to avoid the negation and add a "qcom,secure-domain"
> > property instead? Given PATCH 8/8 ("arm64: dts: qcom: add non-secure
> > domain property to fastrpc nodes") it looks like you are intentionally
> > breaking DT compatibility here, but this patch does not justify why this
> > is necessary.
> By default all ADSP/MDSP/SDSP are secured, so this property is only required
> for something that is not default. Only case that is configurable is the
> CDSP case where in by adding this flag we should be able to load an unsigned
> process to dsp using unsecured node.
> Having said that, TBH When we first added the fastrpc patchset we did not
> take care of this security feature properly :-)
> From security point of view, its better to keep the default as secured
> rather than unsecured in DT too.
> With this DTS patch older dts should continue to work.

Is this a "default" on newer platforms only? Why do the existing
platforms not use the "secure" setup then? Or is this perhaps firmware
version/configuration specific?

Basically I'm confused because you say that the "default" is the secured
setup, but DT patch (8/8) suggests that non-secure is the default on
pretty much all currently supported platforms (msm8916, sdm845, sm8150,
sm8250, sm8350). :)


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-13 14:23    [W:0.117 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site