Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add se-fw binding doc

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3367 bytes --]

Hey,

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:42:13PM +0530, 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/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml     | 121 ++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 121 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7567da0b4c21
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/arm/freescale/fsl,se-fw.yaml#

I think on v3 you were asked to use a filename that matches the
compatibles?

> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: NXP i.MX EdgeLock Enclave Firmware (ELEFW)
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>

> +  value, i.e., supported SoC(s) are imx8ulp, imx93.

> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - fsl,imx-ele

This looks like a generic compatible, not a specific one, but you use it
on the imx8ulp. I would have expected that you would have something like
"fsl,imx8ulp-ele" for that.

> +      - fsl,imx93-ele


> +
> +  mboxes:
> +    description:
> +      A list of phandles of TX MU channels followed by a list of phandles of
> +      RX MU channels. The number of expected tx and rx channels is 1 TX, and
> +      1 RX channels. All MU channels must be within the same MU instance.
> +      Cross instances are not allowed. The MU instance to be used is S4MUAP
> +      for imx8ulp & imx93. 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
> +
> +  fsl,mu-did:
> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> +    description:
> +      Owner of message-unit, is identified via Domain ID or did.

On v3 you had constraints:
	enum: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Do constraints no longer apply? If they do, you can use minimum &
maximum to specify them.

> +  fsl,mu-id:
> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> +    description:
> +      Identifier to the message-unit among the multiple message-unit that exists on SoC.
> +      It is used to create the channels, default to 2

Are there constraints here? If so, same applies.
You should use "default:" for defaults, rather than describing them in
freeform text.

Thanks,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]