On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 01:46:19PM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:

Thanks Conor, for the help.

Sorry to miss out this mail reply.

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 4:50 PM
To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>;
Rob Herring [off-list ref]; Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref];
Conor Dooley [off-list ref]; Shawn Guo [off-list ref];
Sascha Hauer [off-list ref]; Pengutronix Kernel Team
[off-list ref]; Fabio Estevam [off-list ref]; Rob Herring
[off-list ref]; Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref]; linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-
kernel@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; imx@lists.linux.dev; linux-
arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw
binding doc

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:58:47AM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:

quoted

quoted

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at
12:59:40PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:

quoted

The NXP security hardware IP(s) like: i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, V2X
etc., creates an embedded secure enclave within the SoC boundary
to enable features like:
- HSM
- SHE
- V2X

Secure-Enclave(s) communication interface are typically via
message unit, i.e., based on mailbox linux kernel driver. This
driver 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, to be able to communicate over 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>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml   | 160

+++++++++++++++++++++

quoted

 1 file changed, 160 insertions(+)

diff --git
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..60ad1c4a3dfa

--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML
+1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/firmware/fsl,imx-se.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: NXP i.MX HW Secure Enclave(s) EdgeLock Enclave
+
+maintainers:
+  - Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>
+
+description: |
+  NXP's SoC may contain one or multiple embedded secure-enclave
+HW
+  IP(s) like i.MX EdgeLock Enclave, V2X etc. These NXP's HW IP(s)
+  enables features like
+    - Hardware Security Module (HSM),
+    - Security Hardware Extension (SHE), and
+    - Vehicular to Anything (V2X)
+
+  Communication interface to the secure-enclaves is based on the
+ messaging unit(s).
+
+properties:
+  $nodename:
+    pattern: "^[0-9a-z]*-if@[0-9a-f]+$"

Just "firmware@<hex>" please.

Modified as per your suggestion,
-    pattern: "^[0-9a-z]*-if@[0-9a-f]+$"
+    pattern: "^[0-9a-z]*-if@<hex>"

Firstly, that's not even what I said verbatim, which I could understand. <hex>
isn't even a valid bit of regex for this.
What I want to see is something like: "^firmware@[0-9a-f]+$"

These nodes define the interfaces(-if) to the "secure enclave" FW(-fw).
Will replace "-if", with "-fw".

There are multiple NXP IP(s) for secure enclave(s):
- EdgeLock Enclave (ele)
- Vehicular to anything (v2x)
- SECO (seco)

Having "ele-fw" helps identify the FW IP name.

If you need to indentify it, just use a label. "ele-if" or "ele-fw" is
not a generic node name.

Will it be fine to use:
-    pattern: "^[0-9a-z]*-if@[0-9a-f]+$"
+   pattern: "^[0-9a-z]*-fw@[0-9a-f]+$"

or

-    pattern: "^[0-9a-z]*-if@[0-9a-f]+$"
+   pattern: "^[0-9a-z]*-firmware@[0-9a-f]+$"

No, just use firmware please.

Thanks,
Conor.