Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 May 2023 14:02:11 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] nvmem: qfprom: Add support for secure reading on QDU1000/QRU1000 | From | Komal Bajaj <> |
| |
On 5/12/2023 11:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 20:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 12/05/2023 14:21, Komal Bajaj wrote: >>> Add qfprom driver support for QDU1000/QRU1000 SOCs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c >>> index 20662e2d3732..12a7981a8a71 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c >>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c >>> @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ struct qfprom_soc_compatible_data { >>> bool secure; >>> }; >>> >>> +static const struct qfprom_soc_compatible_data qdu1000_qfprom = { >>> + .secure = true >>> +}; >>> + >>> static const struct nvmem_keepout sc7180_qfprom_keepout[] = { >>> {.start = 0x128, .end = 0x148}, >>> {.start = 0x220, .end = 0x228} >>> @@ -490,6 +494,7 @@ static int qfprom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> >>> static const struct of_device_id qfprom_of_match[] = { >>> { .compatible = "qcom,qfprom",}, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-qfprom", .data = &qdu1000_qfprom}, >>> { .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-qfprom", .data = &sc7180_qfprom}, >> I have doubts that this is still compatible with qcom,qfprom. It uses >> entirely different read method. That's why generic fallbacks are bad, >> one more case to my growing list of awesome examples. :) Okay, will do that. > Yes, it looks like it should be 'qcom,qdu1000-qfprom", > "qcom,scm-qfprom". And possibly a separate driver for scm-qfprom. The only difference here is in read method, which can be controlled by a single property, do we really need to write a separate driver for just reading secure feature register.
Thanks, Komal > >
| |