On 05/07/2024 15:52, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > The NXP security hardware IP(s) like: i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, V2X etc., > creates an embedded secure enclave within the SoC boundary to enable > features like: > - HSM > - SHE > - V2X > > Secure-Enclave(s) communication interface are typically via message > unit, i.e., based on mailbox linux kernel driver. This driver 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, to be able to communicate over single MU. > > It exists on some i.MX processors. e.g. i.MX8ULP, i.MX93 etc. This binding is not improving, even though it is v5. > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 133 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..b9018645101d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: NXP i.MX HW Secure Enclave(s) EdgeLock Enclave > + > +maintainers: > + - Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx> > + > +description: | > + NXP's SoC may contain one or multiple embedded secure-enclave HW > + IP(s) like i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, V2X etc. These NXP's HW IP(s) > + enables features like > + - Hardware Security Module (HSM), > + - Security Hardware Extension (SHE), and > + - Vehicular to Anything (V2X) > + > + Communication interface to the secure-enclaves is based on the > + messaging unit(s). > + > +properties: > + $nodename: > + pattern: "firmware@[0-9a-f]+$" > + > + compatible: > + enum: > + - fsl,imx8ulp-se > + - fsl,imx93-se > + - fsl,imx95-se > + > + reg: > + maxItems: 1 > + description: Identifier of the communication interface to secure-enclave. > + > + mboxes: > + description: contain a list of phandles to mailboxes. Drop, obvious. > + items: > + - description: Specify the mailbox used to send message to se firmware > + - description: Specify the mailbox used to receive message from se firmware Drop redundant/obvious parts. So two mailboxes? > + > + mbox-names: > + items: > + - const: tx > + - const: rx > + - const: txdb > + - const: rxdb 4 mailboxes? This cannot be different. > + minItems: 2 > + > + memory-region: > + description: contains the phandle to reserved external memory. Drop > + items: > + - description: It is used by secure-enclave firmware. It is an optional > + property based on compatible and identifier to communication interface. > + (see bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt) > + > + sram: > + description: contains the phandle to sram. Drop > + items: > + - description: Phandle to the device SRAM. It is an optional property > + based on compatible and identifier to communication interface. > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + - mboxes > + - mbox-names > + > +additionalProperties: false Keep it after allOf block > + > +allOf: > + # memory-region > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + enum: > + - fsl,imx8ulp-se > + - fsl,imx93-se > + then: > + required: > + - memory-region > + else: > + properties: > + memory-region: false > + > + # sram > + - if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + enum: > + - fsl,imx8ulp-se > + then: > + required: > + - sram > + > + else: > + properties: > + sram: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + firmware { > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + firmware@0 { > + compatible = "fsl,imx95-se"; > + reg = <0x0>; > + mboxes = <&ele_mu0 0 0>, <&ele_mu0 1 0>; > + mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; > + }; One example is enough. Best regards, Krzysztof
