> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] nvmem: imx-ocotp-ele: Support accessing
> controller for i.MX9
>
> Am Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2025, 04:36:33 CET schrieb Peng Fan:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] nvmem: imx-ocotp-ele: Support
> accessing
> > > controller for i.MX9
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Am Dienstag, 21. Januar 2025, 16:05:32 CET schrieb Peng Fan (OSS):
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > i.MX9 OCOTP supports a specific peripheral or function being
> fused
> > > > which means disabled, so
> > > > - Introduce ocotp_access_gates to be container of efuse gate info
> > > > - Iterate all nodes to check accessing permission. If not
> > > > allowed to be accessed, detach the node
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/nvmem/Kconfig | 3 +
> > > > drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c | 172
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > 2 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig b/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig
> index
> > > >
> > >
> 8671b7c974b933e147154bb40b5d41b5730518d2..77cc496fd5e0e1af
> > > d753534b56fe
> > > > 1f5ef3e3ec55 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ config NVMEM_IMX_OCOTP_ELE
> > > > This is a driver for the On-Chip OTP Controller (OCOTP)
> > > > available on i.MX SoCs which has ELE.
> > > >
> > > > + If built as modules, any other driver relying on this working
> > > > + as access controller also needs to be a module as well.
> > > > +
> > > > config NVMEM_IMX_OCOTP_SCU
> > > > tristate "i.MX8 SCU On-Chip OTP Controller support"
> > > > depends on IMX_SCU
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c
> > > > b/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c index
> > > >
> > >
> ca6dd71d8a2e29888c6e556aaea116c1a967cb5f..5ea6d959ce38760ee
> > > ed44a989992
> > > > fb35c462c0b4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c
> > > > @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
> > > > * Copyright 2023 NXP
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > +#include <dt-bindings/nvmem/fsl,imx93-ocotp.h>
> > > > +#include <dt-bindings/nvmem/fsl,imx95-ocotp.h>
> > > > #include <linux/device.h>
> > > > #include <linux/io.h>
> > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > @@ -27,6 +29,7 @@ struct ocotp_map_entry { };
> > > >
> > > > struct ocotp_devtype_data {
> > > > + const struct ocotp_access_gates *access_gates;
> > > > u32 reg_off;
> > > > char *name;
> > > > u32 size;
> > > > @@ -36,6 +39,20 @@ struct ocotp_devtype_data {
> > > > struct ocotp_map_entry entry[];
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > +#define OCOTP_MAX_NUM_GATE_WORDS 4
> > > > +
> > > > +struct access_gate {
> > > > + u32 word;
> > > > + u32 mask;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct ocotp_access_gates {
> > > > + u32 num_words;
> > > > + u32 words[OCOTP_MAX_NUM_GATE_WORDS];
> > > > + u32 num_gates;
> > > > + struct access_gate *gates;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > struct imx_ocotp_priv {
> > > > struct device *dev;
> > > > void __iomem *base;
> > > > @@ -131,6 +148,82 @@ static void
> > > imx_ocotp_fixup_dt_cell_info(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
> > > > cell->read_post_process = imx_ocotp_cell_pp; }
> > > >
> > > > +static int imx_ele_ocotp_check_access(struct imx_ocotp_priv
> > > > +*priv,
> > > > +u32 id) {
> > > > + const struct ocotp_access_gates *access_gates = priv->data-
> > > >access_gates;
> > > > + void __iomem *reg = priv->base + priv->data->reg_off;
> > > > + u32 word, mask, val;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (id >= access_gates->num_gates) {
> > > > + dev_err(priv->config.dev, "Index %d too large\n", id);
> > > > + return -EACCES;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + word = access_gates->gates[id].word;
> > > > + mask = access_gates->gates[id].mask;
> > > > +
> > > > + reg = priv->base + priv->data->reg_off + (word << 2);
> > > > + val = readl(reg);
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(priv->config.dev, "id:%d word:%d mask:0x%08x\n",
> > > id, word, mask);
> > > > + /* true means not allow access */
> > > > + if (val & mask)
> > > > + return -EACCES;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int imx_ele_ocotp_grant_access(struct imx_ocotp_priv
> > > > +*priv, struct device_node *parent) {
> > > > + struct device *dev = priv->config.dev;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(parent, child) {
> > > > + struct of_phandle_args args;
> > > > + u32 id, idx = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + while (!of_parse_phandle_with_args(child, "access-
> > > controllers",
> > > > + "#access-
> > > controller-cells",
> > > > + idx++, &args)) {
> > > > + of_node_put(args.np);
> > > > + if (args.np != dev->of_node)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Only support one cell */
> > > > + if (args.args_count != 1) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "wrong args count\n");
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + id = args.args[0];
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "Checking node: %pOF
> > > gate: %d\n", child, id);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (imx_ele_ocotp_check_access(priv, id)) {
> > > > + of_detach_node(child);
> > > > + dev_info(dev, "%pOF: Not granted,
> > > device driver will not be probed\n",
> > > > + child);
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + imx_ele_ocotp_grant_access(priv, child);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int imx_ele_ocotp_access_control(struct imx_ocotp_priv
> > > > +*priv) {
> > > > + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) =
> > > > +of_find_node_by_path("/");
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!priv->data->access_gates)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* This should never happen */
> > > > + WARN_ON(!root);
> > >
> > > Even if you warning something is wrong, aka root == NULL, you are
> > > still using it on imx_ele_ocotp_grant_access(). Just return early.
> > >
> > > if (WARN_ON(!))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Hmm, If this really happens, return early or not does not make much
> sense.
> > Does it really matter here?
>
> Why does it not make much sense? You already know something is
> wrong, aka you have a NULL pointer, so it makes even less sense to
> continue.
> I've skipped through the sources and looked for
> 'WARN_ON(!<pointer>)', most of the times it is actually checked for
> early returns.
>
I will include the fail return in V7. Please help check if other parts are
good for you.
Thanks,
Peng.
