As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support
updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list
for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI
variables.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
index dbb77c3f69ddaa931e7faa73911207a83634bda1..27ef2497089e11b5a902d949de2e16b7443a2ca4 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
@@ -2005,6 +2005,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist[] __maybe_unused = {
{ .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", },
{ .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-primus" },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,x1e001de-devkit" },
{ .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-crd" },
{ .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-qcp" },
--
2.39.5
On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support > updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list > for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI > variables. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > index dbb77c3f69ddaa931e7faa73911207a83634bda1..27ef2497089e11b5a902d949de2e16b7443a2ca4 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > @@ -2005,6 +2005,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist[] __maybe_unused = { > { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", }, > { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", }, > { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-primus" }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 Konrad
On 6/27/25 1:34 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support >> updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list >> for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI >> variables. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com> >> --- >> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c >> index dbb77c3f69ddaa931e7faa73911207a83634bda1..27ef2497089e11b5a902d949de2e16b7443a2ca4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c >> @@ -2005,6 +2005,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist[] __maybe_unused = { >> { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", }, >> { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", }, >> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-primus" }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, > > R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 Looked at the wrong SoC META table.. the build date is 05/25/2023 Konrad
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:54:37AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 6/27/25 1:34 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support > >> updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list > >> for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI > >> variables. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > >> index dbb77c3f69ddaa931e7faa73911207a83634bda1..27ef2497089e11b5a902d949de2e16b7443a2ca4 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > >> @@ -2005,6 +2005,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist[] __maybe_unused = { > >> { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", }, > >> { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", }, > >> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-primus" }, > >> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, > > > > R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 > > Looked at the wrong SoC META table.. the build date is 05/25/2023 Could be that my machine was not provisioned properly. Do you boot from UFS or NVMe? My fw is also older: 01/10/2022. Johan
On 6/27/25 2:23 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:54:37AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 6/27/25 1:34 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support >>>> updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list >>>> for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI >>>> variables. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c >>>> index dbb77c3f69ddaa931e7faa73911207a83634bda1..27ef2497089e11b5a902d949de2e16b7443a2ca4 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c >>>> @@ -2005,6 +2005,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist[] __maybe_unused = { >>>> { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", }, >>>> { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", }, >>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-primus" }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, >>> >>> R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 >> >> Looked at the wrong SoC META table.. the build date is 05/25/2023 > > Could be that my machine was not provisioned properly. Do you boot from > UFS or NVMe? > > My fw is also older: 01/10/2022. The machine has UFS, NVME and SPINOR, however the boot log definitely says: S - Boot Interface: SPI Konrad
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:26:41PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 6/27/25 2:23 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:54:37AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> On 6/27/25 1:34 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >>> On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>>> As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support > >>>> updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list > >>>> for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI > >>>> variables. > >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, > >>> > >>> R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 > >> > >> Looked at the wrong SoC META table.. the build date is 05/25/2023 > > > > Could be that my machine was not provisioned properly. Do you boot from > > UFS or NVMe? > > > > My fw is also older: 01/10/2022. > > The machine has UFS, NVME and SPINOR, however the boot log definitely says: > > S - Boot Interface: SPI Mine says: S - Boot Interface: UFS Johan
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:50:26PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:26:41PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > On 6/27/25 2:23 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:54:37AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > >> On 6/27/25 1:34 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > >>> On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > >>>> As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support > > >>>> updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list > > >>>> for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI > > >>>> variables. > > > >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, > > >>> > > >>> R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 > > >> > > >> Looked at the wrong SoC META table.. the build date is 05/25/2023 > > > > > > Could be that my machine was not provisioned properly. Do you boot from > > > UFS or NVMe? > > > > > > My fw is also older: 01/10/2022. > > > > The machine has UFS, NVME and SPINOR, however the boot log definitely says: > > > > S - Boot Interface: SPI > > Mine says: > > S - Boot Interface: UFS Is this META even supported? I think it's recommended to update firmware to the latest releases. -- With best wishes Dmitry
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 05:50:49PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:50:26PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:26:41PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 6/27/25 2:23 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:54:37AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > >> On 6/27/25 1:34 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > >>> On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > >>>> As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support > > > >>>> updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list > > > >>>> for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI > > > >>>> variables. > > > > > >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, > > > >>> > > > >>> R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 > > > >> > > > >> Looked at the wrong SoC META table.. the build date is 05/25/2023 > > > > > > > > Could be that my machine was not provisioned properly. Do you boot from > > > > UFS or NVMe? > > > > > > > > My fw is also older: 01/10/2022. > > > > > > The machine has UFS, NVME and SPINOR, however the boot log definitely says: > > > > > > S - Boot Interface: SPI > > > > Mine says: > > > > S - Boot Interface: UFS > > Is this META even supported? I think it's recommended to update > firmware to the latest releases. It most likely has nothing to do with the meta version, but whether you boot from SPI-NOR or UFS. Johan
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 02:16:58PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 05:50:49PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:50:26PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:26:41PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > On 6/27/25 2:23 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:54:37AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > >> On 6/27/25 1:34 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > >>> On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support > > > > >>>> updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list > > > > >>>> for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI > > > > >>>> variables. > > > > > > > >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 > > > > >> > > > > >> Looked at the wrong SoC META table.. the build date is 05/25/2023 > > > > > > > > > > Could be that my machine was not provisioned properly. Do you boot from > > > > > UFS or NVMe? > > > > > > > > > > My fw is also older: 01/10/2022. > > > > > > > > The machine has UFS, NVME and SPINOR, however the boot log definitely says: > > > > > > > > S - Boot Interface: SPI > > > > > > Mine says: > > > > > > S - Boot Interface: UFS > > > > Is this META even supported? I think it's recommended to update > > firmware to the latest releases. > > It most likely has nothing to do with the meta version, but whether you > boot from SPI-NOR or UFS. > It would make sense that the UFS firmware then acts as the firwmare on any other UFS-based device relies on UFS for EFI variable storage - using yet to be implemented mechanisms. This would explain why you don't have persistent storage on your device after ExitBootServices... Regards, Bjorn > Johan
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:34:56AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 6/25/25 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > As reported by Johan, this platform also doesn't currently support > > updating of the UEFI variables. In preparation to reworking match list > > for QSEECOM mark this platform as supporting QSEECOM with R/O UEFI > > variables. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > > index dbb77c3f69ddaa931e7faa73911207a83634bda1..27ef2497089e11b5a902d949de2e16b7443a2ca4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c > > @@ -2005,6 +2005,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist[] __maybe_unused = { > > { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", }, > > { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", }, > > { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-primus" }, > > + { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-crd", .data = &qcom_qseecom_ro_uefi, }, > > R/W works for me (tm).. the META version may be (inconclusive) 2605 I'd let you sort this out with Johan. He wrote that variables didn't persist across reboots. > > Konrad -- With best wishes Dmitry
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.