-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
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
[nrf noup] platform: nordic_nrf: nRF54L15 does not have UICR #173
[nrf noup] platform: nordic_nrf: nRF54L15 does not have UICR #173
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No Change-Id
in noups.
944c9a3
to
d9c8a50
Compare
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ enum tfm_plat_err_t init_debug(void) | |||
#error "Debug access controlled by NRF_APPROTECT and NRF_SECURE_APPROTECT." | |||
#endif | |||
|
|||
#if defined(NRF_APPROTECT) | |||
#if defined(NRF_APPROTECT) && !defined(NRF54L15_XXAA) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about checking e.g. for NRF_UICR_S
instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or some register/define in particular under UICR (APPROTECT
, SECUREAPPROTECT
).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that we should use the devices as we are using them elsewhere. This is maybe something that could be changed when we know how the nRF54L15 is going to look. We want it to lock debugger permanently, but it is not supported in 2.8.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
though we are using defined(NRF_APPROTECT)
here already 🤔
Do not attempt to lock the UICR.APPROTECT or UICR.SECUREAPPROTECT for nRF54L15. These registers do not exist. TF-M provisioning with nRF54L15 will still result in compilation failure. As it should at this point. Signed-off-by: Markus Lassila <[email protected]>
d9c8a50
to
a68f3e6
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
TF-M provisioning with nRF54L15 will still result in compilation
failure. As it should at this point.
I don't see what's the link between this and what you're doing here?
nrf_provisioning.c checks that these UICR registers are set. This will still cause compilation error for nRF54L15. |
let me check this change with my PR: nrfconnect/sdk-zephyr#2162 before merging this |
LGTM, but I will approve once CI on nrfconnect/sdk-nrf#18370 is green. Testing done locally went fine and @MarkusLassila took a look at that as well |
@nordicjm: When the nrfconnect/sdk-zephyr#2162 is backported to v2.8 branch, do we need to have a corresponding branch for this as well? I am not sure how that should be achieved. |
You should have a branch already where the tag for rc2 was made from |
So, likely this one: v2.1.1-ncs1-branch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sdk-nrf PR is green with APPROTECT changes
@MarkusLassila @nika-nordic This will need to be manually backported |
@rlubos @nika-nordic: 2.8 available in here: #174 |
Do not attempt to lock the UICR.APPROTECT or UICR.SECUREAPPROTECT for nRF54L15. These registers do not exist.
TF-M provisioning with nRF54L15 will still result in compilation failure. As it should at this point.