On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 13:20 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 4/6/22 11:12, Bean Huo wrote: > > It is from the ufs-utils. > > > > So, do you vote to add the UFS RPMB driver based on this new > > framework > > to resolve this conflict? > > Are any applications using the RPMB code from ufs-utils? It seems to > me > that the ufs-utils code doe not handle SCSI unit attentions > correctly. > If a POWER ON unit attention is received as reply to a SECURITY > PROTOCOL > OUT transaction, the write counter should be reread instead of > retrying > the SECURITY PROTOCOL OUT command with the same write counter. > Not much sure how customers use this tool, based on my little information from the field, the customer developed their own RPMB code in the application. Here utils code is good example for them to study and verify RPMB functinalities. > Regarding adding a UFS RPMB driver: that seems useful to me since > multiple applications make use of the UFS RPMB functionality. My > understanding is that currently storageproxyd multiplexes UFS RPMB > accesses in Android. > I have the same opinion with you, if we have an unified RPMB access interface, and adding RPMB driver in the kernel, thus is better to manage RPMB. Kind regards, Bean > Thanks, > > Bart.
