Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-105613-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:21:58 -0500
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, robh@kernel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: Add qfprom node
Message-ID: <gxi4klvxzwwyrwb2b4h7kmii5dx5mxdypxowwz3kyllvq6grss@6lahaospwtsh>
References: <1709727995-19821-1-git-send-email-quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
 <1709727995-19821-2-git-send-email-quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
 <45fcf8fb-9d9b-4e6a-a7c5-9bfb96875e64@linaro.org>
 <69a8c14c-109a-103a-b8dc-d8e303c0f0d5@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <69a8c14c-109a-103a-b8dc-d8e303c0f0d5@quicinc.com>

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:13:59PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, was on vacation.
> 
> On 3/6/2024 9:24 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 3/6/24 13:26, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > Add the qfprom node for sm8450 SoC.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > > ? arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> > > ? 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > index b86be34a912b..02089a388d03 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > @@ -4575,6 +4575,13 @@
> > > ????????????? };
> > > ????????? };
> > > +??????? qfprom: efuse@221c8000 {
> > > +??????????? compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
> > > +??????????? reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>;
> > 
> > Is is really only 0x1000-long? Also, is the base you put
> > here the ECC-corrected part (if that still exists)?
> 
> No, its not.
> 
> Entire fuse space is this.
> 0x221C0000-0x221Cbfff
> 
> ECC corrected range is this 0x221C2000-0x221C3fff and High level OS

That's 0x2000. Does this then also imply that the ECC-corrected values
are no longer mapped 1:1 with non-corrected, or why do they differ in
size?

> does have a access to ECC range however, they are not recommended for
> SW usage.
> 
> Above mentioned SW range(4) in the patch is  one and only accessible range
> available out of 0-7 SW ranges(0x221C4000-0x221Cbfff with each
> size 0x1000) and does not have ECC fuses.
> 

So you're saying that in contrast to other platforms, the 4th software
range, dedicated for HLOS, does not have a matching ECC-corrected
shadow? If that's the case, then "not recommended for SW usage" sounds
wrong.

> All the downstream use cases are getting fulfilled with this.
> 

You only need ECC if you're unlucky...

Regards,
Bjorn