On 5/11/2022 12:21 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 2022-05-11 11:16, schrieb Pankaj Gupta:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ahmad Fatoum <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:34 PM
>>> To: Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]>; Horia Geanta
>>> <[email protected]>; Herbert Xu <[email protected]>;
>>> David S.
>>> Miller <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: [email protected]; Michael Walle <[email protected]>; James
>>> Bottomley <[email protected]>; Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>;
>>> Mimi
>>> Zohar <[email protected]>; David Howells <[email protected]>;
>>> James
>>> Morris <[email protected]>; Eric Biggers <[email protected]>; Serge
>>> E.
>>> Hallyn <[email protected]>; Jan Luebbe <[email protected]>; David
>>> Gstir
>>> <[email protected]>; Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>; Franck
>>> Lenormand <[email protected]>; Matthias Schiffer
>>> <[email protected]>; Sumit Garg
>>> <[email protected]>;
>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-security-
>>> [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH v9 3/7] crypto: caam - determine whether
>>> CAAM
>>> supports blob encap/decap
>>>
>>> Caution: EXT Email
>>>
>>> Hello Pankaj,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2022-05-09 at 12:39 +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>>>> - if (ctrlpriv->era < 10)
>>>>> + comp_params = rd_reg32(&ctrl->perfmon.comp_parms_ls);
>>>>> + ctrlpriv->blob_present = !!(comp_params & CTPR_LS_BLOB);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (ctrlpriv->era < 10) {
>>>>> rng_vid = (rd_reg32(&ctrl->perfmon.cha_id_ls) &
>>>>> CHA_ID_LS_RNG_MASK) >>
>>>>> CHA_ID_LS_RNG_SHIFT;
>>>>
>>>> Check for AES CHAs for Era < 10, should be added.
>>>
>>> Do I need this? I only do this check for Era >= 10, because apparently
>>> there are
>>> Layerscape non-E processors that indicate BLOB support via
>>> CTPR_LS_BLOB, but
>>> fail at runtime. Are there any Era < 10 SoCs that are similarly
>>> broken?
>>>
>>
>> For non-E variants, it might happen that Blob protocol is enabled, but
>> number of AES CHA are zero.
>> If the output of below expression is > 0, then only blob_present
>> should be marked present or true.
>> For era > 10, you handled. But for era < 10, please add the below code.
>
> Are there any CAAMs which can be just enabled partially for era < 10?
> I didn't found anything. To me it looks like the non-export controlled
> CAAM is only available for era >= 10. For era < 10, the CAAM is either
> fully featured there or it is not available at all and thus the node
> is removed in the bootloader (at least that is the case for layerscape).
>
Qouting from our previous discussion in U-boot:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#2457448
"
Based on previous (NXP-internal) discussions, non-E crypto module is:
-fully disabled on: LS1021A (ARMv7), LS1043A, LS1088A, LS2088A
(and their personalities)
-partially [*] disabled on: LS1012A, LS1028A, LS1046A, LX2160A
(and their personalities)
"
From the partially disabled list, LS1028A and LX2160A have CAAM Era 10,
while LS1012A and LS1046A integrate CAAM Era 8.
Horia