Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Protected feature #2734

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 30, 2024
Merged

Protected feature #2734

merged 9 commits into from
Jan 30, 2024

Conversation

avtolstoy
Copy link
Member

TODO

@avtolstoy avtolstoy added this to the 6.0.0 milestone Jan 30, 2024
@@ -24,19 +24,23 @@

#define INTERNAL_FLASH_START_ADD 0x00000000
#define INTERNAL_FLASH_END_ADDR 0x00100000
#define INTERNAL_FLASH_IF_STRING "@Internal Flash /0x00000000/1*004Ka,47*004Kg,192*004Kg,4*004Kg,4*004Kg,8*004Ka";
#define INTERNAL_FLASH_IF_STRING "@Internal Flash /0x00000000/1*004Ka,47*004Kg,192*004Kg,4*004Kg,4*004Kg,8*004Ka"
#define INTERNAL_FLASH_IF_STRING_PROT "@Internal Flash /0x00000000/1*004Kb,47*004Kb,192*004Kb,4*004Kb,4*004Kb,8*004Kb"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A comment explaining the reason for the different letters would be helpful so that someone looking at this in the future doesn't need to reverse engineer what the letters mean and why it's important to change them. This comment can wait for the next PR.

@@ -96,6 +97,8 @@ DYNALIB_FN(48, services, devicetree_tree_lock, int(void*))
DYNALIB_FN(49, services, devicetree_tree_get, int(void*, uint32_t, void*))
DYNALIB_FN(50, services, devicetree_string_dictionary_lookup, const char*(uint32_t, void*))
DYNALIB_FN(51, services, devicetree_hash_string, uint32_t(const char*, size_t))
DYNALIB_FN(52, services, security_mode_set, int(module_info_security_mode, void*))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we need security_mode_set in dynalib? Shouldn't the bootloader be the only caller of this method?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Needed for testing, it also doesn't allow protected->non-protected, so should be fine, but I'll remove this.

Copy link
Member

@scott-brust scott-brust left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See testing discussion here

@avtolstoy avtolstoy merged commit e0cf88b into develop Jan 30, 2024
13 checks passed
@avtolstoy avtolstoy deleted the feature/protected branch January 30, 2024 21:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants