On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 07:05:41AM -0600, Richard Gong wrote:

Hi Greg,

Thanks for review!

On 1/27/21 6:04 AM, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:56:23PM -0600, richard.gong@linux.intel.com wrote:

quoted

From: Richard Gong <redacted>

Add COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM command flag for new added bitstream
authentication feature. Authenticating a bitstream is to make sure a signed
bitstream has the valid signatures.

Except for the actual configuration of the device, the bitstream
authentication works the same way as FPGA configuration does. If the
authentication passes, the signed bitstream will be programmed into QSPI
flash memory and will be expected to boot without issues.

Clean up COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL flag by resetting it to 0, which
aligns with the firmware settings.

Signed-off-by: Richard Gong <redacted>
---
v3: no change
v2: new added
---
  include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h | 11 ++++++++---
  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h b/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h
index ebc2956..7ada1f2 100644
--- a/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h
+++ b/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h

@@ -51,12 +51,17 @@
  #define SVC_STATUS_NO_SUPPORT		6
  /*
- * Flag bit for COMMAND_RECONFIG
+ * Flag for COMMAND_RECONFIG, in bit number
   *
   * COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL:
- * Set to FPGA configuration type (full or partial).
+ * Set for partial FPGA configuration.
+ *
+ * COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM:
+ * Set for bitstream authentication, which makes sure a signed bitstream
+ * has valid signatures before committing it to QSPI flash memory.
   */
-#define COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL	1
+#define COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL	0

So is this a bugfix, changing this value to the correct one?

Yes, it is a bug fix.

Wat? This is a change in interface spec with the firmware. I thought the
whole point of the firmware version SVC call was to prevent breaking old
firmware?

Didn't we discuss this earlier?

quoted

If so, shouldn't this be a stand-alone patch and get backported to
stable kernel releases?

Sure, I will make change and submit again as a standalone patch.

quoted

If not, then no one uses this flag today?

thanks,

greg k-h

Regards,
Richard

- Moritz