> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 6:54 PM
> To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley
> <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Pengutronix
> Kernel Team <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio Estevam
> <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] firmware: imx: add driver for NXP EdgeLock
> Enclave
>
> 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 Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:19:35PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > NXP hardware IP(s) for secure-enclaves like Edgelock Enclave(ELE), are
> > embedded in the SoC to support the features like HSM, SHE & V2X, using
> > message based communication interface.
> >
> > The secure enclave FW communicates on a dedicated messaging unit(MU)
> > based interface(s) with application core, where kernel is running.
> > It exists on specific i.MX processors. e.g. i.MX8ULP, i.MX93.
> >
> > This patch adds the driver for communication interface to
> > secure-enclave, for exchanging messages with NXP secure enclave HW
> > IP(s) like EdgeLock Enclave (ELE) from Kernel-space, used by kernel
> > management layers like
> > - DM-Crypt.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/firmware/imx/Kconfig | 12 +
> > drivers/firmware/imx/Makefile | 2 +
> > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.c | 286 +++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.h | 92 +++++++
> > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.c | 239 ++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.h | 43 +++
> > drivers/firmware/imx/se_ctrl.c | 531
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/firmware/imx/se_ctrl.h | 99 +++++++
> > include/linux/firmware/imx/se_api.h | 14 +
> > 9 files changed, 1318 insertions(+)
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > +int imx_ele_msg_send(struct se_if_priv *priv, void *tx_msg) {
> > + struct se_msg_hdr *header;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + header = (struct se_msg_hdr *) tx_msg;
> > +
> > + if (header->tag == priv->cmd_tag)
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&priv->se_if_cmd_lock);
> > +
> > + scoped_guard(mutex, &priv->se_if_lock);
>
> scoped_guard() with an empty block doesn't make much sense. Either use
> scope_guard() { /* do something locked */ }; or guard().
>
Need to allow send more than one message at a time. Hence, done it after taking the lock.
Once message sent, scope of lock is over.
Thus, scope of the lock se_if_lock, to execute the function "mbox_send_message()", keeping the "se_if_lock" locked.
> Sascha
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | |
> Steuerwalder Str. 21 |
> http://www.pe/
> ngutronix.de%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cpankaj.gupta%40nxp.com%7Cbf79ff917
> 442406e454308dc7b2b8ef2%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0
> %7C0%7C638520674210595147%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiM
> C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7
> C%7C%7C&sdata=UUYK6KTYzgxY5kO4McFy0%2FGrXxTrf2MG5g4cvJ6E4Qk%
> 3D&reserved=0 |
> 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
