Hi Pankaj,
Am 23.08.23 um 09:33 schrieb Pankaj Gupta:
The Edgelock Enclave , is the secure enclave embedded in the SoC
to support the features like HSM, SHE & V2X, using message based
communication channel.
ELE FW communicates on a dedicated MU with application core where
kernel is running. It exists on specific i.MX processors. e.g.
i.MX8ULP, i.MX93.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes:https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202304120902.bP52A56z-lkp@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/se-cdev | 29 +
drivers/firmware/imx/Kconfig | 12 +
drivers/firmware/imx/Makefile | 2 +
drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.c | 62 ++
drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.c | 34 +
drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.h | 21 +
drivers/firmware/imx/se_fw.c | 1201 +++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/firmware/imx/se_fw.h | 168 +++
include/linux/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.h | 37 +
include/linux/firmware/imx/ele_mu_ioctl.h | 52 +
10 files changed, 1618 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/se-cdev
create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.c
create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.c
create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.h
create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/imx/se_fw.c
create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/imx/se_fw.h
create mode 100644 include/linux/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.h
create mode 100644 include/linux/firmware/imx/ele_mu_ioctl.h
...
+
+int ele_get_info(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t addr, u32 data_size)
+{
+ struct ele_mu_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ int ret;
+ unsigned int tag, command, size, ver, status;
+
+ ret = plat_fill_cmd_msg_hdr(priv,
+ (struct mu_hdr *)&priv->tx_msg.header,
+ ELE_GET_INFO_REQ, 16);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ priv->tx_msg.data[0] = upper_32_bits(addr);
+ priv->tx_msg.data[1] = lower_32_bits(addr);
+ priv->tx_msg.data[2] = data_size;
+ ret = imx_ele_msg_send_rcv(priv);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ tag = MSG_TAG(priv->rx_msg.header);
+ command = MSG_COMMAND(priv->rx_msg.header);
+ size = MSG_SIZE(priv->rx_msg.header);
+ ver = MSG_VER(priv->rx_msg.header);
+ status = RES_STATUS(priv->rx_msg.data[0]);
+ if (tag == priv->rsp_tag &&
+ command == ELE_GET_INFO_REQ &&
+ size == ELE_GET_INFO_REQ_MSG_SZ &&
+ ver == ELE_BASE_API_VERSION &&
+ status == priv->success_tag)
+ return 0;
except of the coding style, i won't recommend this error handling. In
case a user report a failure of ele_get_info(), we need to figure out
which of these conditions failed. Why not check the conditions step by
step and give a detailed error message.
The same applies to the rest of the series.
Best regards
+
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
