Hi Tom,
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 5:08 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:57:16PM +0300, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
From: Ricardo Salveti ricardo@foundries.io
Get Unique ID of SoC iMX7ULP, using the logic described in Fusemap (IMX7ULPRMB2_Rev0_Fusemap) attached in the i.MX 7ULP APRM [1].
[1] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/IMX7ULPRMB2.pdf
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Salveti ricardo@foundries.io Co-developed-by: Oleksandr Suvorov oleksandr.suvorov@foundries.io Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Suvorov oleksandr.suvorov@foundries.io
arch/arm/mach-imx/mx7ulp/soc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx7ulp/soc.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx7ulp/soc.c index 320f24dd29..d088ee093d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx7ulp/soc.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx7ulp/soc.c @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ #include <asm/arch/sys_proto.h> #include <asm/mach-imx/boot_mode.h> #include <asm/mach-imx/hab.h> +#include <asm/setup.h> #include <linux/bitops.h>
#define PMC0_BASE_ADDR 0x410a1000 @@ -363,3 +364,25 @@ enum boot_device get_boot_device(void)
return boot_dev;}
+#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_TAG +/*
- OCOTP_CFG (SJC CHALLENGE, Unique ID)
- i.MX 7ULP Applications Processor Reference Manual, Rev. 0, 09/2020
- OCOTP_CFG0 offset 0x4B0: 15:0 -> 15:0 bits of Unique ID
- OCOTP_CFG1 offset 0x4C0: 15:0 -> 31:16 bits of Unique ID
- OCOTP_CFG2 offset 0x4D0: 15:0 -> 47:32 bits of Unique ID
- OCOTP_CFG3 offset 0x4E0: 15:0 -> 63:48 bits of Unique ID
- */
+void get_board_serial(struct tag_serialnr *serialnr) +{
struct ocotp_regs *ocotp = (struct ocotp_regs *)OCOTP_BASE_ADDR;struct fuse_bank *bank = &ocotp->bank[1];struct fuse_bank1_regs *fuse =(struct fuse_bank1_regs *)bank->fuse_regs;serialnr->low = (fuse->cfg0 & 0xFFFF) + ((fuse->cfg1 & 0xFFFF) << 16);serialnr->high = (fuse->cfg2 & 0xFFFF) + ((fuse->cfg3 & 0xFFFF) << 16);+} +#endif
It's not either of your fault that CONFIG_SERIAL_TAG has been abused for so long. Please rework this on top of: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=260161
Thanks for pointing me to the upcoming patches! I'm rebasing my patch on top of them. The new version is coming.
Or, since I plan to pull that in to -next soon, circle back to this problem in a week or two.
-- Tom