On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 20:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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. :)
Yes, it looks like it should be 'qcom,qdu1000-qfprom",
"qcom,scm-qfprom". And possibly a separate driver for scm-qfprom.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
