[PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Komal Bajaj]

Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
DDR channel configuration.

Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
---
 arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
@@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
 CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
 CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
 CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
+CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
 CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
 CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
 CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
--
2.42.0

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 13:57, Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> DDR channel configuration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000

Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
Qualcomm downstream stuff.

> platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> DDR channel configuration.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
>  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
>  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
>  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y

Module

>  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
>  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
>  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> --
> 2.42.0
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Mukesh Ojha]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> > Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> 
> Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
> Qualcomm downstream stuff.
> 
> > platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> > DDR channel configuration.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
> >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
> >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
> >  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> > +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
> 
> Module

Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
should be m or both y

-Mukesh
> 
> >  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
> >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
> >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> > --
> > 2.42.0
> > 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19/06/2024 14:10, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
>>> Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
>>
>> Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
>> Qualcomm downstream stuff.
>>
>>> platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
>>> DDR channel configuration.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
>>> index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
>>> @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
>>>  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
>>>  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
>>>  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
>>> +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
>>
>> Module
> 
> Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
> Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> should be m or both y

Why? There is no dependency in Kconfig.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:40:42PM GMT, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> > > Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> > 
> > Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
> > Qualcomm downstream stuff.
> > 
> > > platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> > > DDR channel configuration.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> > > +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
> > 
> > Module
> 
> Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
> Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> should be m or both y

Looking back in time, CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM was enabled as built-in
to get TSENS to work (which makes sense, we don't want the CPUs to
burn). What the actual users for NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM?

> 
> -Mukesh
> > 
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> > > --
> > > 2.42.0
> > > 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> > 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Mukesh Ojha]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 04:14:50PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:40:42PM GMT, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> > > > Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> > > 
> > > Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
> > > Qualcomm downstream stuff.
> > > 
> > > > platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> > > > DDR channel configuration.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
> > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
> > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
> > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> > > > +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
> > > 
> > > Module
> > 
> > Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
> > Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> > should be m or both y
> 
> Looking back in time, CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM was enabled as built-in
> to get TSENS to work (which makes sense, we don't want the CPUs to
> burn). What the actual users for NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM?


CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM are similar driver
for same device and only difference is register region lies in secure space
for the latter;

Currently, LLCC is the only client for CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM, however
if someday if the region lies in non-secure space in that case, client
started depending on CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM.

It reminds me, we have not yet put depends on for LLCC on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
doing which is resulting in recursive dependency[1].

It looks we need to select NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM from QCOM_LLCC config and that
may not need config enablement here.

[1]
fs/sysfs/Kconfig:2:error: recursive dependency detected!
fs/sysfs/Kconfig:2:     symbol SYSFS is selected by CONFIGFS_FS
fs/configfs/Kconfig:2:  symbol CONFIGFS_FS is selected by GPIO_SIM
drivers/gpio/Kconfig:1884:      symbol GPIO_SIM depends on GPIOLIB
drivers/gpio/Kconfig:6: symbol GPIOLIB is selected by I2C_MUX_LTC4306
drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig:47:   symbol I2C_MUX_LTC4306 depends on I2C_MUX
drivers/i2c/Kconfig:62: symbol I2C_MUX is selected by DRM_SII902X
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:270:     symbol DRM_SII902X depends on DRM_BRIDGE
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:2:       symbol DRM_BRIDGE is selected by DRM_MSM
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/Kconfig:3:  symbol DRM_MSM depends on QCOM_LLCC
drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig:47:    symbol QCOM_LLCC depends on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
drivers/nvmem/Kconfig:230:      symbol NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM depends on NVMEM
drivers/nvmem/Kconfig:2:        symbol NVMEM is selected by EEPROM_AT24
drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig:4:  symbol EEPROM_AT24 depends on SYSFS
For a resolution refer to Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.rst

-Mukesh

> 
> > 
> > -Mukesh
> > > 
> > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
> > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
> > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> > > > --
> > > > 2.42.0
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Krzysztof
> > > 
> 
> -- 
> With best wishes
> Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:40:42PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> > > Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> > 
> > Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
> > Qualcomm downstream stuff.
> > 
> > > platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> > > DDR channel configuration.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> > > +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
> > 
> > Module
> 
> Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
> Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> should be m or both y
> 

While that would be a convenient guideline, you're adding runtime
overhead to all other targets (Qualcomm and non-Qualcomm) so the desire
to keep anything that can module outweigh such convenience.

Based on the recent addition of llcc and qfprom nodes I'm _guessing_
that LLCC is the one user of this today, and it is =m, so therefore
SEC_QFPROM can be =m as well.


By expanding the commit message slightly, we could have avoided the
"why?" questions and the need for me to "guess" the actual dependency.

Regards,
Bjorn

> -Mukesh
> > 
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
> > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> > > --
> > > 2.42.0
> > > 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> > 

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:08:10PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 04:14:50PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:40:42PM GMT, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> > > > > Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> > > > 
> > > > Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
> > > > Qualcomm downstream stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > > platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> > > > > DDR channel configuration.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > > index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
> > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
> > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
> > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> > > > > +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
> > > > 
> > > > Module
> > > 
> > > Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
> > > Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> > > should be m or both y
> > 
> > Looking back in time, CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM was enabled as built-in
> > to get TSENS to work (which makes sense, we don't want the CPUs to
> > burn). What the actual users for NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM?
> 
> 
> CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM are similar driver
> for same device and only difference is register region lies in secure space
> for the latter;
> 
> Currently, LLCC is the only client for CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM, however
> if someday if the region lies in non-secure space in that case, client
> started depending on CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM.
> 
> It reminds me, we have not yet put depends on for LLCC on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> doing which is resulting in recursive dependency[1].
> 

Kconfig "depends on" describes build time dependencies and LLCC doesn't
depend on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM.

It does depend on nvmem_cell_read_u8() being defined, but as
CONFIG_NVMEM is bool there will either be a proper implementation (=y)
or a static inline stub (=n) of this function, so we don't need to
describe this dependency.

> It looks we need to select NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM from QCOM_LLCC config and that
> may not need config enablement here.
> 

This is a runtime dependency, created through the nvmem framework by the
relationship defined in DeviceTree. We don't describe those.

Regards,
Bjorn

> [1]
> fs/sysfs/Kconfig:2:error: recursive dependency detected!
> fs/sysfs/Kconfig:2:     symbol SYSFS is selected by CONFIGFS_FS
> fs/configfs/Kconfig:2:  symbol CONFIGFS_FS is selected by GPIO_SIM
> drivers/gpio/Kconfig:1884:      symbol GPIO_SIM depends on GPIOLIB
> drivers/gpio/Kconfig:6: symbol GPIOLIB is selected by I2C_MUX_LTC4306
> drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig:47:   symbol I2C_MUX_LTC4306 depends on I2C_MUX
> drivers/i2c/Kconfig:62: symbol I2C_MUX is selected by DRM_SII902X
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:270:     symbol DRM_SII902X depends on DRM_BRIDGE
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:2:       symbol DRM_BRIDGE is selected by DRM_MSM
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/Kconfig:3:  symbol DRM_MSM depends on QCOM_LLCC
> drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig:47:    symbol QCOM_LLCC depends on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> drivers/nvmem/Kconfig:230:      symbol NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM depends on NVMEM
> drivers/nvmem/Kconfig:2:        symbol NVMEM is selected by EEPROM_AT24
> drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig:4:  symbol EEPROM_AT24 depends on SYSFS
> For a resolution refer to Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.rst
> 
> -Mukesh
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > -Mukesh
> > > > 
> > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
> > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
> > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.42.0
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Krzysztof
> > > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > With best wishes
> > Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Mukesh Ojha]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 09:51:48AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:08:10PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 04:14:50PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:40:42PM GMT, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
> > > > > > Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
> > > > > 
> > > > > Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
> > > > > Qualcomm downstream stuff.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
> > > > > > DDR channel configuration.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > > > index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> > > > > > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
> > > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
> > > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
> > > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
> > > > > > +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
> > > > > 
> > > > > Module
> > > > 
> > > > Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
> > > > Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> > > > should be m or both y
> > > 
> > > Looking back in time, CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM was enabled as built-in
> > > to get TSENS to work (which makes sense, we don't want the CPUs to
> > > burn). What the actual users for NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM?
> > 
> > 
> > CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM are similar driver
> > for same device and only difference is register region lies in secure space
> > for the latter;
> > 
> > Currently, LLCC is the only client for CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM, however
> > if someday if the region lies in non-secure space in that case, client
> > started depending on CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM.
> > 
> > It reminds me, we have not yet put depends on for LLCC on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> > doing which is resulting in recursive dependency[1].
> > 
> 
> Kconfig "depends on" describes build time dependencies and LLCC doesn't
> depend on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM.
> 
> It does depend on nvmem_cell_read_u8() being defined, but as
> CONFIG_NVMEM is bool there will either be a proper implementation (=y)
> or a static inline stub (=n) of this function, so we don't need to
> describe this dependency.

I remember nvmem_cell_read_u8() patch., however, got misleaded by some of the
in kernel example like.,

config ARM_QCOM_CPUFREQ_NVMEM
        tristate "Qualcomm nvmem based CPUFreq"
        depends on ARCH_QCOM
        depends on NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM
        depends on QCOM_SMEM
        select PM_OPP
        help
          This adds the CPUFreq driver for Qualcomm Kryo SoC based boards.

          If in doubt, say N.

Here, ARM_QCOM_CPUFREQ_NVMEM should not depend on NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM
for compilation, as NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is the provider driver while
all the stubs are available and ARM_QCOM_CPUFREQ_NVMEM is consumer here.

-Mukesh
> 
> > It looks we need to select NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM from QCOM_LLCC config and that
> > may not need config enablement here.
> > 
> 
> This is a runtime dependency, created through the nvmem framework by the
> relationship defined in DeviceTree. We don't describe those.
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 
> > [1]
> > fs/sysfs/Kconfig:2:error: recursive dependency detected!
> > fs/sysfs/Kconfig:2:     symbol SYSFS is selected by CONFIGFS_FS
> > fs/configfs/Kconfig:2:  symbol CONFIGFS_FS is selected by GPIO_SIM
> > drivers/gpio/Kconfig:1884:      symbol GPIO_SIM depends on GPIOLIB
> > drivers/gpio/Kconfig:6: symbol GPIOLIB is selected by I2C_MUX_LTC4306
> > drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig:47:   symbol I2C_MUX_LTC4306 depends on I2C_MUX
> > drivers/i2c/Kconfig:62: symbol I2C_MUX is selected by DRM_SII902X
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:270:     symbol DRM_SII902X depends on DRM_BRIDGE
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:2:       symbol DRM_BRIDGE is selected by DRM_MSM
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/Kconfig:3:  symbol DRM_MSM depends on QCOM_LLCC
> > drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig:47:    symbol QCOM_LLCC depends on NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
> > drivers/nvmem/Kconfig:230:      symbol NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM depends on NVMEM
> > drivers/nvmem/Kconfig:2:        symbol NVMEM is selected by EEPROM_AT24
> > drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig:4:  symbol EEPROM_AT24 depends on SYSFS
> > For a resolution refer to Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.rst
> > 
> > -Mukesh
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Mukesh
> > > > > 
> > > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
> > > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
> > > > > >  CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.42.0
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Krzysztof
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > With best wishes
> > > Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable secure QFPROM driver

[Komal Bajaj]

On 6/19/2024 10:12 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:40:42PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2024 12:56, Komal Bajaj wrote:
>>>> Enable the secure QFPROM driver which is used by QDU1000
>>>
>>> Qualcomm QDU1000. You are changing kernel-wide defconfig, not some
>>> Qualcomm downstream stuff.
>>>
>>>> platform for reading the secure qfprom region to get the
>>>> DDR channel configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
>>>> index 838b4466d6f6..c940437ae1b3 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
>>>> @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ CONFIG_NVMEM_LAYERSCAPE_SFP=m
>>>>   CONFIG_NVMEM_MESON_EFUSE=m
>>>>   CONFIG_NVMEM_MTK_EFUSE=y
>>>>   CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM=y
>>>> +CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM=y
>>>
>>> Module
>>
>> Should not this be inline with what CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM is having ?
>> Either both CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_QFPROM and CONFIG_NVMEM_QCOM_SEC_QFPROM
>> should be m or both y
>>
> 
> While that would be a convenient guideline, you're adding runtime
> overhead to all other targets (Qualcomm and non-Qualcomm) so the desire
> to keep anything that can module outweigh such convenience.
> 
> Based on the recent addition of llcc and qfprom nodes I'm _guessing_
> that LLCC is the one user of this today, and it is =m, so therefore
> SEC_QFPROM can be =m as well.
> 
> 
> By expanding the commit message slightly, we could have avoided the
> "why?" questions and the need for me to "guess" the actual dependency.
> 

Thanks Bjorn for the suggestion.
I will incorporate the suggested changes in the next patch.

Thanks
Komal

> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 
>> -Mukesh
>>>
>>>>   CONFIG_NVMEM_RMEM=m
>>>>   CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_EFUSE=y
>>>>   CONFIG_NVMEM_ROCKCHIP_OTP=y
>>>> --
>>>> 2.42.0
>>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>