Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:46:01 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc:     richard@nod.at, vigneshr@ti.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        boris.brezillon@collabora.com, Daniele.Palmas@telit.com,
        bjorn.andersson@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Add support for secure regions in NAND
Message-ID: <20210318121601.GA21610@thinkpad>
References: <20210317122513.42369-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20210317155121.19cbb50c@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20210317155121.19cbb50c@xps13>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Miquel,

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 03:51:21PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Manivannan,
> 
> Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote on Wed,
> 17 Mar 2021 17:55:10 +0530:
> 
> > On a typical end product, a vendor may choose to secure some regions in
> > the NAND memory which are supposed to stay intact between FW upgrades.
> > The access to those regions will be blocked by a secure element like
> > Trustzone. So the normal world software like Linux kernel should not
> > touch these regions (including reading).
> > 
> > So this series adds a property for declaring such secure regions in DT
> > so that the driver can skip touching them. While at it, the Qcom NANDc
> > DT binding is also converted to YAML format.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mani
> > 
> > Changes in v5:
> > 
> > * Switched to "uint64-matrix" as suggested by Rob
> > * Moved the whole logic from qcom driver to nand core as suggested by Boris
> 
> I'm really thinking about a nand-wide property now. Do you think it
> makes sense to move the helper to the NAND core (instead of the raw
> NAND core)? I'm fine only using it in the raw NAND core though.
> 

The reason why I didn't move the helper and checks to NAND core is I haven't
seen any secure implementations in other NAND interfaces except rawnand. This
change can be done in future if we start seeing implementations.

> Also, can I request a global s/sec/secure/ update? I find the "sec"
> abbreviation unclear and I think we have more than enough cryptic
> names :-)
> 

Sure.

Thanks,
Mani

> Thanks,
> Miqu?l