[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] SECURE BOOT: add version info for ISBC

[aneesh.bansal at freescale.com]

> T4/B4 SoC's have a different version of ISBC. The secure boot
> functionality is different with the new version of ISBC
> compared to the earlier SoC's. So the version information is added
> in file config_mpc85xx.h
>
> Signed-off-by: Ruchika Gupta <ruchika.gupta at freescale.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Bansal <aneesh.bansal at freescale.com>
> ---
>  README                                    | 3 +++
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/config_mpc85xx.h | 9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/README b/README
> index aea82be..6c3a8d1 100644
> --- a/README
> +++ b/README
> @@ -423,6 +423,9 @@ The following options need to be configured:
>               CONFIG_SYS_FSL_DSP_CCSRBAR_DEFAULT
>               This value denotes start offset of DSP CCSR space.
>
> +             CONFIG_SYS_FSL_ISBC_VER
> +             This value indicates the major ISBC version on the platform.
> +
>               CONFIG_SYS_FSL_SINGLE_SOURCE_CLK
>               Single Source Clock is clocking mode present in some of FSL SoC's.
>               In this mode, a single differential clock is used to supply

You already have all relevant information present in the current
configuration.  There is no need to add yet another CONFIG_SYS_
option; the information can easily be derived from the existing data.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Ernest asks Frank how long he has been working for the company.
        "Ever since they threatened to fire me."

ISBC (Internal Secure Boot Code) is an IP which has different versions on different SOC's. The major difference which this CONFIG represents is whether CAAM block is being used for cryptographic operations or not. I will be adding more details in the description IN README and resend the patch.
 
The only other way that this can be derived is by doing SoC specific checking which would become a little messy.

Regards,
Aneesh Bansal