Re: [PATCH v7 02/11] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw binding doc

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 30/10/2023 10:58, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> The NXP's i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, a HW IP creating an embedded
> secure enclave within the SoC boundary to enable features like
> - HSM
> - SHE
> - V2X
> 
> Communicates via message unit with linux kernel. This driver
> is enables communication ensuring well defined message sequence
> protocol between Application Core and enclave's firmware.
> 
> Driver configures multiple misc-device on the MU, for multiple
> user-space applications can communicate on single MU.
> 
> It exists on some i.MX processors. e.g. i.MX8ULP, i.MX93 etc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>
> ---
>  .../bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se-fw.yaml      | 83 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 83 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se-fw.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se-fw.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se-fw.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0503ea497d61
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se-fw.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/firmware/fsl,imx-se-fw.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: NXP i.MX EdgeLock Enclave Firmware (ELEFW)
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>
> +
> +description:

This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It seems my or other reviewer's previous comments were not fully
addressed. Maybe the feedback got lost between the quotes, maybe you
just forgot to apply it. Please go back to the previous discussion and
either implement all requested changes or keep discussing them.

Thank you.


Also - not tested

> +  The NXP's i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, a HW IP creating an embedded
> +  secure enclave within the SoC boundary to enable features like
> +  - HSM
> +  - SHE
> +  - V2X
> +
> +  It uses message unit to communicate and coordinate to pass messages
> +  (e.g., data,  status and control) through its interfaces.
> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - fsl,imx8ulp-se-fw
> +      - fsl,imx93-se-fw
> +
> +  mboxes:
> +    description:
> +      All MU channels must be within the same MU instance. Cross instances are
> +      not allowed. Users need to ensure that used MU instance does not conflict
> +      with other execution environments.
> +    items:
> +      - description: TX0 MU channel
> +      - description: RX0 MU channel
> +
> +  mbox-names:
> +    items:
> +      - const: tx
> +      - const: rx
> +
> +  memory-region:
> +    items:
> +      - description: Reserved memory region that can be accessed by firmware. Used for
> +          exchanging the buffers between driver and firmware.
> +
> +  sram:
> +    description: Phandle to the device SRAM

Nothing improved

> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array

How many items? What's inside?


> +
> +required:
> +  - compatible
> +  - mboxes
> +  - mbox-names
> +
> +allOf:
> +  # memory-region
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            enum:
> +              - fsl,imx8ulp-se-fw
> +              - fsl,imx93-se-fw
> +    then:
> +      required:
> +        - memory-region
> +    else:
> +      not:
> +        required:
> +          - memory-region

That's not the syntax. Test it.

You wanted :false

> +
> +additionalProperties: false
> +
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    se-fw2 {

And how suddenly "2" appeared here? Anyway:

Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of
examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation


> +      compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-se-fw";
> +      mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> +      mboxes = <&s4muap 0 0>, <&s4muap 1 0>;

Add complete example, so you miss sram.

This code is not going well. :( I understand some discussions on
properties but lack of testing? At v7 of patchset still not tested?


Best regards,
Krzysztof