On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 at 09:23, Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > > > +struct rpmb_frame {
> > > > + u8 stuff[196];
> > > > + u8 key_mac[32];
> > > > + u8 data[256];
> > > > + u8 nonce[16];
> > > > + __be32 write_counter;
> > > > + __be16 addr;
> > > > + __be16 block_count;
> > > > + __be16 result;
> > > > + __be16 req_resp;
> > > > +} __packed;
> > >
> > > I haven't looked at the NVME or the UFS spec in detail. Although, I
> > > assume the above frame makes sense for those types of
> > interfaces/protocols too?
> > The rpmb implementation in ufs, has drifted apart from eMMC. E.g. in
> > UFS4.0:
> > - the frame is different - see struct ufs_arpmb_meta in
> > include/uapi/scsi/scsi_bsg_ufs.h,
> > - Additional extended header was added,
> > - the frame size is no longer 512Bytes (256Bytes meta info + 256Bytes data)
> > but 4k,
> > - there are 9 rpmb operations instead of 7,
> > - The atomicity requirement of the command sequence was waved, And
> > probably more differences that I forgot.
> > This is why it is better to designated this as an eMMC-only implementation?
>
> As I wrote previously the original implementation has already resolved protocol differences
> (NVMe have also different byte ordering) for closed usecase of storing data (not the configuration)
> I believe the whole point here is to let TEE driver to store the data, regardless of the technology.
Yes, I also agree. It makes sense to have a generic way to manage RPMB
partitions, even if there are some specific parts that must be managed
differently based on the underlying technology.
That said, I tend to think that we actually want the UFS and NVMe
implementation being included in the $subject series too. To get the
complete picture. Otherwise, we may just end up having to redesign a
lot of things, if we just start with eMMC.
> In addition I might be wrong but I don't see much value in eMMC as the UFS and NVMe are currently leading technologies.
Even if UFS and NVMe have been taking over some of the earlier eMMC
product segments, I think it's too soon to declare eMMC dead. :-)
Moreover, we also have older platforms that we want to get supported
upstream and allowing them to move away from downstream-hacks, is also
a very good reason to add eMMC support.
> Thanks
> Tomas
>
Kind regards
Uffe
