[PATCH 00/15] OMAP SHAM & AES Crypto Updates

[Mark A. Greer]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:13:36PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hi Mark,

Hi Paul.

> I regret the delay,
> 
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Mark A. Greer wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:40:43AM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >
> > > - The patch series causes AM3517/3505 to crash.  I'd guess this is due to 
> > > the SHAM/AES modules being initialized on those chips, but they probably 
> > > don't exist there.  Can you change the initialization for those on OMAP3 
> > > to only take place on OMAP34xx/36xx GP?  I guess you'd need to create new 
> > > lists for those in the hwmod init.
> > 
> > All am35xx GPs have the SHAM and AES modules except some very old ones.
> > I've been told that there should be very few of the "old" ones around
> > (I don't know how to differentiate them).  We're likely safe since the
> > SHAM & AES modules are not enabled in omap2plus_defconfig so nobody
> > should be enabling them on an am35xx unless they know that they have
> > the modules.  Do you agree?
> 
> Those will presumably only enable or disable the device drivers.  The 
> hwmod code will probably still try to write to those IP blocks if they are 
> listed as present in the hwmod data, during the initial reset-and-idle 
> phase.

Um, yeah, good point. :)

> What do you think about adding an am35xx_es11plus_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] array to 
> omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c for these secure hwmods?  That carries the implicit 
> and possibly wrong assumption that it's likely to be ES1.0 devices that 
> are missing the SHAM/AES, but it seems unlikely that TI would have 
> multiple silicon revs running around claiming to be ES1.1?  Or maybe I'm 
> just being naïve.

Something like that makes sense to me.  I'll re-read my email, etc. and
see if I can find something to help us figure it out.

> > The issue that you're likely running into is that 'CK_AM35XX' needs to be
> > added for aes2_ick & sha12_ick in cclock3xxx_data.c.   The following
> > patch should fix it (applies to my submitted/crypto/hwmod branch):
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cclock3xxx_data.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cclock3xxx_data.c
> > index 582b055..aa5bdf6 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cclock3xxx_data.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cclock3xxx_data.c
> > @@ -3332,10 +3332,10 @@ static struct omap_clk omap3xxx_clks[] = {
> >  	CLK("omap_hsmmc.2",	"ick",	&mmchs3_ick,	CK_3430ES2PLUS | CK_AM35XX | CK_36XX),
> >  	CLK(NULL,	"mmchs3_ick",	&mmchs3_ick,	CK_3430ES2PLUS | CK_AM35XX | CK_36XX),
> >  	CLK(NULL,	"icr_ick",	&icr_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_36XX),
> > -	CLK("omap-aes",	"ick",		&aes2_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_36XX),
> > -	CLK(NULL,	"aes2_ick",	&aes2_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_36XX),
> > -	CLK("omap-sham",	"ick",	&sha12_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_36XX),
> > -	CLK(NULL,	"sha12_ick",	&sha12_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_36XX),
> > +	CLK("omap-aes",	"ick",		&aes2_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_AM35XX | CK_36XX),
> > +	CLK(NULL,	"aes2_ick",	&aes2_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_AM35XX | CK_36XX),
> > +	CLK("omap-sham",	"ick",	&sha12_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_AM35XX | CK_36XX),
> > +	CLK(NULL,	"sha12_ick",	&sha12_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_AM35XX | CK_36XX),
> >  	CLK(NULL,	"des2_ick",	&des2_ick,	CK_34XX | CK_36XX),
> >  	CLK("omap_hsmmc.1",	"ick",	&mmchs2_ick,	CK_3XXX),
> >  	CLK("omap_hsmmc.0",	"ick",	&mmchs1_ick,	CK_3XXX),
> > 
> > 
> > Please let me know if this patch works for you and, if it does, I'll respin
> > my patches to add those changes.
> 
> If those clocks are referenced by the hwmods, that that patch makes sense 
> to me.  Haven't had the chance to test it yet but maybe tomorrow.  On the 
> other hand it looks 'obviously correct' so maybe just add that change to 
> your patches and repost that one?

Will do.

Mark
--