[PATCH 3/9] firmware: imx: ele: Add API functions for OCOTP fuse access

[Frieder Schrempf]

On 16.06.26 17:36, Frank Li wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 01:52:18PM +0200, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
>> From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf at kontron.de>
>>
>> The ELE S400 API provides read and write access to the OCOTP fuse
>> registers. This adds the necessary API functions imx_se_read_fuse()
>> and imx_se_write_fuse() to be used by other drivers such as the
>> OCOTP S400 NVMEM driver.
>>
>> This is ported from the downstream vendor kernel.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf at kontron.de>
>> ---
>>  drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.h |   6 ++
>>  include/linux/firmware/imx/se_api.h |   3 +
>>  3 files changed, 131 insertions(+)
>>
> ...
>> +++ b/include/linux/firmware/imx/se_api.h
>> @@ -11,4 +11,7 @@
>>  #define SOC_ID_OF_IMX8ULP		0x084d
>>  #define SOC_ID_OF_IMX93			0x9300
>>
>> +int imx_se_read_fuse(void *se_if_data, uint16_t fuse_id, u32 *value);
>> +int imx_se_write_fuse(void *se_if_data, uint16_t fuse_id, u32 value);
>> +
> 
> This API should implement in fuse drivers. Other consume should use standard
> fuse API to get value. If put here, it may bypass fuse driver.

The reason this is here, is the downstream implementation in linux-imx
and the current code organization. I thought there is some good reason
to have shared functions and it looks like Pankaj structured it like
this so all API functions live in ele_base_msg.c and the internal
structs and defines in ele_base_msg.h and se_ctrl.h are not exposed to
other drivers.

If I would move this into imx-ocotp-ele.c, then I would also need to
change how the code is organized and make the internal se_api functions
exposed to other drivers. I don't know if that is really a good idea.

I get your point but it looks like this contradicts the intention of
having a clean API in the firmware driver.