Hey, On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:42:13PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > The NXP's i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, a HW IP creating an embedded > secure enclave within the SoC boundary to enable features like > - HSM > - SHE > - V2X > > Communicates via message unit with linux kernel. This driver > is enables communication ensuring well defined message sequence > protocol between Application Core and enclave's firmware. > > Driver configures multiple misc-device on the MU, for multiple > user-space applications can communicate on single MU. > > It exists on some i.MX processors. e.g. i.MX8ULP, i.MX93 etc. > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx> > --- > .../bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml | 121 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..7567da0b4c21 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml# I think on v3 you were asked to use a filename that matches the compatibles? > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: NXP i.MX EdgeLock Enclave Firmware (ELEFW) > + > +maintainers: > + - Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx> > + value, i.e., supported SoC(s) are imx8ulp, imx93. > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + enum: > + - fsl,imx-ele This looks like a generic compatible, not a specific one, but you use it on the imx8ulp. I would have expected that you would have something like "fsl,imx8ulp-ele" for that. > + - fsl,imx93-ele > + > + mboxes: > + description: > + A list of phandles of TX MU channels followed by a list of phandles of > + RX MU channels. The number of expected tx and rx channels is 1 TX, and > + 1 RX channels. All MU channels must be within the same MU instance. > + Cross instances are not allowed. The MU instance to be used is S4MUAP > + for imx8ulp & imx93. Users need to ensure that used MU instance does not > + conflict with other execution environments. > + items: > + - description: TX0 MU channel > + - description: RX0 MU channel > + > + mbox-names: > + items: > + - const: tx > + - const: rx > + > + fsl,mu-did: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > + description: > + Owner of message-unit, is identified via Domain ID or did. On v3 you had constraints: enum: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Do constraints no longer apply? If they do, you can use minimum & maximum to specify them. > + fsl,mu-id: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > + description: > + Identifier to the message-unit among the multiple message-unit that exists on SoC. > + It is used to create the channels, default to 2 Are there constraints here? If so, same applies. You should use "default:" for defaults, rather than describing them in freeform text. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
