Hi Rob,
In case of the i.MX95 SoC, which has multiple firmware nodes, two firmware nodes need to be differentiated.
Is it correct if the following entries were added later, without 'reg'?
firmware@0 {
compatible = "fsl,imx95-se-fw";
mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
mboxes = <&elemu3 0 0>,
<&elemu3 1 0>;
};
firmware@1 {
compatible = "fsl,imx95-se-fw";
mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
mboxes = <&elemu4 0 0>,
<&elemu4 1 0>;
};
Regards
Pankaj
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pankaj Gupta
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 1:26 PM
> To: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Guo
> <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio Estevam
> <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw
> binding doc
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 11:34 PM
> > To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Guo
> > <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio Estevam
> > <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw
> > binding doc
> >
> > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking
> > links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using
> > the 'Report this email' button
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:49:57AM +0530, 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.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml | 111
> > +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 111 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..bd99505de6e6
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
> > > +---
> > > +$id:
> > >
> >
> +https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdevi
> > > +cetree.org%2Fschemas%2Ffirmware%2Ffsl%2Cimx-
> > se.yaml%23&data=05%7C02%7
> > >
> >
> +Cpankaj.gupta%40nxp.com%7Cf1bfd437edfe4dcc6c0b08dca29d0434%7C6
> > 86ea1d3
> > >
> >
> +bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638564042462565488%7CUn
> > known%7CTWF
> > >
> >
> +pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ
> > XVCI6
> > >
> >
> +Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Uxa8Cb3W5imjH%2FZGUEaGGO4VYFO
> > oeVwzJmeFd6SbJ
> > > +TU%3D&reserved=0
> > > +$schema:
> > >
> >
> +https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdevi
> > > +cetree.org%2Fmeta-
> > schemas%2Fcore.yaml%23&data=05%7C02%7Cpankaj.gupta%
> > >
> >
> +40nxp.com%7Cf1bfd437edfe4dcc6c0b08dca29d0434%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c
> > 6fa92cd9
> > >
> >
> +9c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638564042462575447%7CUnknown%7CTWF
> > pbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> > >
> >
> +joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
> > C0%7C%
> > >
> >
> +7C%7C&sdata=bhF5HZ655JjWQCaTu3BP5rd1kXZLSb8PKNsle7aWRq4%3D&
> > reserved=0
> > > +
> > > +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.
> >
> > I don't understand what this is. How does someone determine what the
> > value should be? Are there constraints on the values?
>
> I will remove this. This was added to differentiate between multiple firmware
> nodes.
>
> In case of the i.MX95 SoC, which has multiple firmware nodes, I proposed to
> make the following changes in .dtsi file:
> firmware@0 {
> compatible = "fsl,imx95-se-fw";
> mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> mboxes = <&elemu3 0 0>,
> <&elemu3 1 0>;
> };
>
> firmware@1 {
> compatible = "fsl,imx95-se-fw";
> mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> mboxes = <&elemu4 0 0>,
> <&elemu4 1 0>;
> };
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + mboxes:
> > > + items:
> > > + - description: mailbox phandle to send message to se firmware
> >
> > "mailbox phandle to " is redundant. Drop.
> >
> Accepted.
>
> > > + - description: mailbox phandle to receive message from se
> > > + firmware
> > > +
> > > + mbox-names:
> > > + description: two names are to be listed, one for rx and other one for tx.
> > > + The name can be any of the below list.
> >
> > I think this can be dropped. The schema says all this.
> >
> Accepted.
> Complete description will be removed"
>
> > > + items:
> > > + - const: tx
> > > + - const: rx
> > > +
> > > + memory-region:
> > > + items:
> > > + - description: The phandle to the reserved external memory, the only
> > > + accessible memoryregion to secure enclave(SE) firmware. It is an
> > > + optional property based on compatible.
> > > + (see bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt)
> >
> > Drop. 'maxItems: 1' is sufficient.
> Accepted.
> >
> > > +
> > > + sram:
> > > + items:
> > > + - description: It is an optional property based on compatible.
> >
> > Drop. 'maxItems: 1' is sufficient.
> >
> > > +
> > > +required:
> > > + - compatible
> > > + - reg
> > > + - mboxes
> > > + - mbox-names
> > > +
> > > +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
> > > +
> > > +additionalProperties: 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";
> > > + };
> > > + };
> > > +...
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
