On 11/20/2024 4:09 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 01:31:14PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 at 13:05, Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/14/2024 4:16 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:06:55AM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/13/2024 8:10 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 10:50:44AM +0000, Renjiang Han (QUIC) wrote: >>>>>>> Hello >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The following changes since commit 6482750d396980a31f76edd5a84b03a96bbdf3fe: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Merge branch 'verb' into 'main' (2024-11-11 20:01:00 +0000) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> are available in the Git repository at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:clo/linux-kernel/linux-firmware.git<mailto:git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:clo/linux-kernel/linux-firmware.git> video-firmware-qcs615 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to 1e7f65883150d3b48307b4f0d6871c60151ee25b: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> qcom: venus-5.4: add venus firmware file for qcs615 (2024-11-13 15:50:29 +0530) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Renjiang Han (1): >>>>>>> qcom: venus-5.4: add venus firmware file for qcs615 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WHENCE | 1 + >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you please be more specific, what is the difference between the >>>>>> existing file and a new file? According to the soc_vers the new file >>>>>> supports sdm845. Should it instead replace the old firmware? >>>>> SDM845, SC7180, qcs615 can be enabled on same firmware ideally, but due to a >>>>> different signing for qcs615, it takes a separate bin (xxx_s6.mbn). >>>> >>>> Can SDM845 handle v6 signatures? It supports v5 and PSS. Or can QCS615 >>>> use v5 signatures? >>> Infact we started with loading sc7180 firmware on qc615, video init failed. So >>> far i have seen 2 categories in signing version for video bins, either default >>> or v6 specific tool. >> >> Can firmware / security engineers actually advice us on using v5 >> firmware signatures with QCS615 _and_ with older platforms? >> Existing venus-5.4/venus.mbn uses v3 > > Vikash, any updates on this topic? Would it be possible to have a single > FW image with just v5 signatures? Not yet Dmitry. Having a followup with relevant folks this friday to understand the signing requirements across different SOCs, hopefully will be able to add something on this by then. Regards, Vikash
