lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 1/5] firmware: stratix10-svc: add COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM flag
Richard,

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:16:09PM -0600, Richard Gong wrote:

> > > -#define COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL 1
> > > +#define COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL 0
> > > +#define COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM 1
> >
> > Can you explain how this commit by itself doesn't break things?
> >
> > Before this change firmware expected BIT(0) to be set for partial
> > reconfiguration, now BIT(0) suddenly means authentication? How doest his
> > work? :)
> > > Was there a firmware version change? Did this never work before?
> >
> > If this is version depenedent for firmware, then this might need a
> > different compatible string / id / some form of probing?
> >
> > Entirely possible that I'm missing something, but it doesn't *seem*
> > right.
>
> It did work before.
>
> Before this change, firmware only checks if the received flag value is zero.
> If the value is zero, it preforms full reconfiguration. Otherwise it does
> partial reconfiguration.
>
> To support bitstream authentication feature, firmware is updated to check
> the received flag value as below:
> 0 --- full reconfiguration
> BIT(0) --- partial reconfiguration
> BIT(1) --- bitstream authentication

So there are two different versions of firmware involved that behave
differently?

Old firmware:
- ctype.flags = 0x0 -> Full reconfig
- ctype.flags != 0 -> Partial reconfig

New firmware:
- ctype.flags = 0x0 -> Full reconfig
- ctype.flags = 0x1 -> Partial reconfig
- ctype.flags = 0x2 -> Authenticate

Old software:
- Send 0x0 for Full
- Send 0x1 for Partial

New software:
- Send 0x0 for Full
- Send 0x1 for Partial
- Send 0x2 for Auth

If I send request for authentication BIT(1) (new software) to old
firmware it'd try and attempt a partial reconfiguration with the data I
send? Is that safe?

Is there a way for software to figure out the firmware version and do
the right thing?

> Therefore I have updated the command flag setting at Intel service layer
> driver to align with firmware.
>
> Regards,
> Richard
>
> > > /**
> > > * Timeout settings for service clients:
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> > >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Moritz
> >

Thanks,
Moritz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-22 02:11    [W:0.067 / U:3.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site