On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 05:30:55PM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On 11/29/2024 8:05 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 04:40:51PM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote: > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > It's been more than a week since the last email. Are there any updates? > > I'd really like to get this sorted out before next linux-firmware > > release, otherwise we'll be stuck with these names for the foreseeable > > future. > I have been chasing both the firmware and security folks to align on this. So > far the updates are that one is signed MBNv5 and other with MBNV6, hence leading I think the existing firmware uses v3, not v5. 00001000 00 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 28 00 a0 0f |............(...| > to different set of binaries. These MBN versions of signing is defined at SOC > level and depends on secure boot libraries used in that SOC. > At the same time, there is an experiment to check if SC7180 can be signed with > version used for QCS615 i.e MBNV6. Thanks! Are you trying that without updating the whole bootloader stack? I think some of SC7180 devices might be EOL'd, so it might be hard to get FW/bootloader updates. > One query here - given that qcs615 only loads the venus_s6.mbn variant, and it > is not enabled yet (patches in review) for video, we should be good if we > conclude the firmware part before accepting the qcs615 enablement patches ? Good question. I think that depends on linux-firmware maintainer's opinion. -- With best wishes Dmitry
