From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=40.107.3.47; helo=eur03-am5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com; envelope-from=meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr30047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.3.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 269A0221E0684 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:33:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nxp.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=JsWWZ17xED6lkRfQlXllw4V05kUTJkxZrxYhO+rQfyQ=; b=H1LD54cIcruuIMgkhFhRzqiJq7JizIU05/ybSe+F9iABaxOhBxy5n6GndVe/ClYa9J2s2VGC9iaxRCvKUoWRTOOJYb7yzl8a9DpLB96Lt23tzEp5MZ3n5TIZzEPx1/BmR4yWky2EJTIxRZ/U5qtB1V20DYpG8ndaLS+CL5Y5z9Q= Received: from DB5PR04MB0998.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.161.199.12) by AM5PR04MB2993.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.173.254.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.302.9; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:37:50 +0000 Received: from DB5PR04MB0998.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1d9f:72df:a04f:ddb6]) by DB5PR04MB0998.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1d9f:72df:a04f:ddb6%17]) with mapi id 15.20.0260.006; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:37:50 +0000 From: Meenakshi Aggarwal To: "Gao, Liming" , Leif Lindholm CC: "Kinney, Michael D" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" , Udit Kumar , Varun Sethi Thread-Topic: [edk2] [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] Platform/NXP : Add support for Watchdog driver Thread-Index: AQHTZz0pxW4AsfntREuNB/61ei0MWqMzS9KAgAANVQCAAOYhAIAAZFUAgALjJwCAAEDSAIAAQGcAgAALPgCABJRmgIAFokOQ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:37:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1511779917-9255-1-git-send-email-meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com> <1511779917-9255-3-git-send-email-meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com> <20171204143537.abxvjztldex2bjde@bivouac.eciton.net> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E189CAA@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20171205110606.374td5x3rhdnhh5g@bivouac.eciton.net> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E18BC76@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20171207110338.do5i3kqrseb24edx@bivouac.eciton.net> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E18C0A4@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20171207153422.g4lqd6g2fo4oqcht@bivouac.eciton.net> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E18E21E@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E18E21E@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com; x-originating-ip: [192.88.169.1] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR04MB2993; 6:Ubfk6BYiCGlqXy05+QNjl2LFU1WFWyV7nxYxQW1IURvB2+0HFqxXKzXInpDung6bx3Pwo8GGBd7BkfmN/KDoH+lIhZ/e33PY2UhBGyUJpQ+wdIgGfJdElDyZWuf+XJaD1TIvHdhXgNVbGu+OjHWH38SGIiBxhheSs7ZkAgWANQ69ORD+H0z+CHQOuFWHlIRhloiyALwKWZQqpvmH9U5fPs4Thd4/FDSHtlMT4qYd+JkEAmfl76C830DL+sdLbWQW0MPYfHA+NxHnDot/62Jike+sKfrbbR6NzQQY048Xohop9MALotEhNnc3u4kUNMC/513wLyAc5qILH0dX/oQaooHMDNbRyx4zRTi9NsOEdlc=; 5:ldUghdzMnpVgTE3kazp+/IHlx4SFhxyU9J5xi7EtwzyI+cVdMk/eyK3xCsQS4SEimgjw9rjleYORJFZpwJ053xlqHT5EZWG90ukP41oCTjeEF7BvV1yBu5lOQwTkwU7AkQkhe9lwxnZTBr2wjp+1NWbH0HJiVtxRHepZ6aay0Q8=; 24:7oyZadOMV7ENwSGfMG0zO6B9CqPdZ5aDsr/DN4T0ydgiHyS+PBpasxs2HgR5pv8E6esxH787BvfMwUzpY26Nnu9zJPqj+zvBMJk3Z5o8Ufc=; 7:u9Ayv76oCKjS6oRXQSHRlHnDhTrKri2vJ8zejAFUH4SCP/33YG6RM/+oliWe4FP+dlpyUifgf+47L7hyTnRThD0lBWjw+dFBwa3+TVOM1mG6WkAHmAeTUdMJbNxG5Kh0zhtlTuxOOEZNPiwOoIwkR+GNxAghAZkfXAtW7yaoKt//6wJHmHGdiQ25/hlX4UgPJFD9KTC442a+v1XsNL1Yt3KWEDYrh8Paz3mHnI0BYlSZ2Kuo4YkKu/x5mEJFSK0r x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR; x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(24454002)(13464003)(2900100001)(99286004)(2906002)(110136005)(54906003)(8936002)(66066001)(478600001)(74316002)(45080400002)(6506007)(68736007)(33656002)(316002)(106356001)(25786009)(105586002)(6116002)(6306002)(9686003)(93886005)(5250100002)(229853002)(53936002)(3280700002)(6436002)(8676002)(966005)(102836003)(81166006)(305945005)(14454004)(59450400001)(86362001)(7696005)(97736004)(4326008)(2950100002)(6246003)(5660300001)(3846002)(53546011)(3660700001)(81156014)(55016002)(7736002)(76176011)(171213001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR04MB2993; H:DB5PR04MB0998.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: dbaf46b5-d8b5-46aa-cad3-08d542a40cff x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(48565401081)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(5600026)(4604075)(2017052603307); SRVR:AM5PR04MB2993; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM5PR04MB2993: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(189930954265078)(185117386973197)(162533806227266)(45079756050767)(228905959029699); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(3231023)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(20161123562025)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:AM5PR04MB2993; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:AM5PR04MB2993; x-forefront-prvs: 05214FD68E received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dbaf46b5-d8b5-46aa-cad3-08d542a40cff X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Dec 2017 03:37:50.1390 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR04MB2993 Subject: Re: [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] Platform/NXP : Add support for Watchdog driver X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:33:14 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, There is no clean way to register a handler with this watchdog controller. Even if we do then there are chances that false notification will be sent t= o the module which has registered a handler. We can go ahead with this implementation, i assume and i will share new rev= ision of patch replacing EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER with EFI_UNSUPPORTED. Please share your feedback. Thanks, Meenakshi > -----Original Message----- > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of > Gao, Liming > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 7:01 PM > To: Leif Lindholm > Cc: Kinney, Michael D ; edk2- > devel@lists.01.org; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] Platform/NXP : > Add support for Watchdog driver >=20 > Leif: > I have no strong opinion. PI spec doesn't require WdogRegisterHandler > must be supported. So, this implementation doesn't break spec. For this > platform, if there is no register handler or no critical register handler= , this > Watchdog driver can be used. >=20 > Thanks > Liming > > -----Original Message----- > > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of > Leif Lindholm > > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 11:34 PM > > To: Gao, Liming > > Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Kinney, Michael= D > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] Platform/NXP = : > Add support for Watchdog driver > > > > Liming, > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fw > ww.mail-archive.com%2Fedk2- > devel%40lists.01.org%2Fmsg32761.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggar > wal%40nxp.com%7C3b6ad3d8cfdd4a766c4a08d53fd23a09%7C686ea1d3bc2b4 > c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636485094541353596&sdata=3DkEb4x9jl1ng > %2FlumodoxsB5i4RD3NmTUgX9GN9KcKtkI%3D&reserved=3D0 > > Search for WdogRegisterHandler. > > > > This topic is entirely unrelated to any _usage_ of watchdog timer > > protocol. > > > > The topic is only whether it is reasonable to _implement_ > > EFI_WATCHDOG_TIMER_ARCH_PROTOCOL for a hardware watchdog that > *cannot* > > cause a callback to a handler function. > > Because when the hardware watchdog times out, it triggers a hard > > system reset, without any software interaction. > > > > / > > Leif > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:54:08PM +0000, Gao, Liming wrote: > > > Leif: > > > I don't review the whole patch serial. Could you point your usage > > > case on watch dog timer protocol? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Liming > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org] > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 7:04 PM > > > > To: Gao, Liming > > > > Cc: Udit Kumar ; Kinney, Michael D > ; Meenakshi Aggarwal > > > > ; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; edk2- > devel@lists.01.org; Varun Sethi > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] Platform/NXP : > Add support for Watchdog driver > > > > > > > > Hi Liming, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:11:38AM +0000, Gao, Liming wrote: > > > > > Leif: > > > > > I don't see the core driver uses > > > > > WatchdogTimer->RegisterHandler(). When it returns unsupported, = it > > > > > means the additional handler can't be registered. DxeCore uses > > > > > WatchdogTimer->SetTimerPeriod(). This service is implemented in > > > > > your driver. > > > > > > > > > > Watchdog protocol is defined in PI spec. Spec describes that th= is > > > > > protocol provides the services required to implement the Boot > > > > > Service SetWatchdogTimer(). It provides a service to set the > > > > > amount of time to wait before firing the watchdog timer, and it > > > > > also provides a service to register a handler that is invoked w= hen > > > > > the watchdog timer fires. This protocol can implement the watch= dog > > > > > timer by using the event and timer Boot Services, or it can mak= e > > > > > use of custom hardware. If no handler has been registered, or t= he > > > > > registered handler returns, then the system will be reset by > > > > > calling the Runtime Service ResetSystem(). So, this protocol is > > > > > required. > > > > > > > > I am not disputing that the protocol is not required. I am suggesti= ng > > > > that this hardware watchdog _cannot_ be used to register a handler. > > > > > > > > If this hardware watchdog does not get updated in time, that causes= an > > > > immediate hardware reset of the processor. > > > > > > > > Because of this, I believe EFI_WATCHDOG_TIMER_ARCH_PROTOCOL is > not the > > > > appropriate way to make use of it. > > > > > > > > Please let me know whether you agree. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Leif > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Liming > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > > > >From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org] > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 7:06 PM > > > > > >To: Udit Kumar > > > > > >Cc: Gao, Liming ; Kinney, Michael D > > > > > >; Meenakshi Aggarwal > > > > > >; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; edk2- > > > > > >devel@lists.01.org; Varun Sethi > > > > > >Subject: Re: [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] Platform/NXP = : > Add > > > > > >support for Watchdog driver > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:07:00AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote: > > > > > >> > I suggest return EFI_UNSUPPORTED for this case. The protoc= ol > > > > > >implementation > > > > > >> > could return its status besides spec defined status. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks to help me , how core will treat this error > > > > > >> 1/ Wdt not available > > > > > >> 2/ ignoring this error > > > > > >> 3/ core is not registering handler > > > > > >> I guess 3 is valid, > > > > > > > > > > > >Looking at Core/Dxe/Misc/SetWatchdogTimer.c: > > > > > > // > > > > > > // Attempt to set the timeout > > > > > > // > > > > > > Status =3D gWatchdogTimer->SetTimerPeriod (gWatchdogTimer, > > > > > > MultU64x32 (Timeout, > WATCHDOG_TIMER_CALIBRATE_PER_SECOND)); > > > > > > > > > > > > // > > > > > > // Check for errors > > > > > > // > > > > > > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > > > > > > return EFI_DEVICE_ERROR; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > >The SetWatchdogTimer() call would always return > EFI_DEVICE_ERROR. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On side track, looks wdt is not used by core services then do = we > > > > > >> really need this as part of arch protocol ? > > > > > > > > > > > >Yes, that was ultimately what I was implying with my question > > > > > >regarding whether this protocol is relevant for a watchdog that = can > > > > > >only ever reset the system on timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > >The protocol looks to me to be designed to use a dedicated gener= ic > > > > > >timer as backing for a software watchdog. > > > > > > > > > > > >Liming, Mike? > > > > > > > > > > > >If that is the case, then I agree this driver should probably no= t > > > > > >implement this protocol, but rather set up a timer event (or a > > > > > >dedicated timer) to stroke the watchdog. > > > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > >Leif > > > > > > > > > > > >> regards > > > > > >> Udit > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> > From: Gao, Liming [mailto:liming.gao@intel.com] > > > > > >> > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 8:53 PM > > > > > >> > To: Leif Lindholm ; Kinney, Michae= l D > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Cc: Meenakshi Aggarwal ; > > > > > >> > ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Udit Kum= ar > > > > > >> > ; Varun Sethi > > > > > >> > Subject: RE: [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] > Platform/NXP : Add > > > > > >support > > > > > >> > for Watchdog driver > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Leif: > > > > > >> > I suggest return EFI_UNSUPPORTED for this case. The protoc= ol > > > > > >implementation > > > > > >> > could return its status besides spec defined status. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Thanks > > > > > >> > Liming > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org] > > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 10:36 PM > > > > > >> > > To: Kinney, Michael D ; Gao, > Liming > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Cc: Meenakshi Aggarwal ; > > > > > >> > > ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; > > > > > >> > > udit.kumar@nxp.com; v.sethi@nxp.com > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH edk2-platforms] [PATCH v3 2/9] > Platform/NXP : Add > > > > > >> > > support for Watchdog driver > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Mike, Liming, as MdePkg mainteiners - one question below: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 04:21:50PM +0530, Meenakshi > Aggarwal wrote: > > > > > >> > > > diff --git a/Platform/NXP/Drivers/WatchDog/WatchDog.c > > > > > >> > > > b/Platform/NXP/Drivers/WatchDog/WatchDog.c > > > > > >> > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > >> > > > index 0000000..a9c70ef > > > > > >> > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > >> > > > +++ b/Platform/NXP/Drivers/WatchDog/WatchDog.c > > > > > >> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,421 @@ > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ... > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > +/** > > > > > >> > > > + This function registers the handler NotifyFunction so= it is > > > > > >> > > > +called every time > > > > > >> > > > + the watchdog timer expires. It also passes the amoun= t of > time > > > > > >> > > > +since the last > > > > > >> > > > + handler call to the NotifyFunction. > > > > > >> > > > + If NotifyFunction is not NULL and a handler is not al= ready > > > > > >> > > > +registered, > > > > > >> > > > + then the new handler is registered and EFI_SUCCESS is > returned. > > > > > >> > > > + If NotifyFunction is NULL, and a handler is already > registered, > > > > > >> > > > + then that handler is unregistered. > > > > > >> > > > + If an attempt is made to register a handler when a ha= ndler > is > > > > > >> > > > +already registered, > > > > > >> > > > + then EFI_ALREADY_STARTED is returned. > > > > > >> > > > + If an attempt is made to unregister a handler when a > handler is > > > > > >> > > > +not registered, > > > > > >> > > > + then EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER is returned. > > > > > >> > > > + > > > > > >> > > > + @param This The EFI_TIMER_ARCH_PROTOCOL > instance. > > > > > >> > > > + @param NotifyFunction The function to call when a = timer > interrupt > > > > > >fires. > > > > > >> > This > > > > > >> > > > + function executes at TPL_HIG= H_LEVEL. The > DXE Core > > > > > >will > > > > > >> > > > + register a handler for the t= imer interrupt, so it > can know > > > > > >> > > > + how much time has passed. Th= is information is > used to > > > > > >> > > > + signal timer based events. N= ULL will unregister > the > > > > > >handler. > > > > > >> > > > + > > > > > >> > > > + @retval EFI_SUCCESS The watchdog timer hand= ler > was > > > > > >registered. > > > > > >> > > > + @retval EFI_ALREADY_STARTED NotifyFunction is not > NULL, and a > > > > > >> > handler is already > > > > > >> > > > + registered. > > > > > >> > > > + @retval EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER NotifyFunction is NULL, > and a > > > > > >handler > > > > > >> > was not > > > > > >> > > > + previously registered. > > > > > >> > > > + > > > > > >> > > > +**/ > > > > > >> > > > +STATIC > > > > > >> > > > +EFI_STATUS > > > > > >> > > > +EFIAPI > > > > > >> > > > +WdogRegisterHandler ( > > > > > >> > > > + IN EFI_WATCHDOG_TIMER_ARCH_PROTOCOL *This, > > > > > >> > > > + IN EFI_WATCHDOG_TIMER_NOTIFY NotifyFunction > > > > > >> > > > + ) > > > > > >> > > > +{ > > > > > >> > > > + // ERROR: This function is not supported. > > > > > >> > > > + // The hardware watchdog will reset the board > > > > > >> > > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER; > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Michael, Liming - what's your take on this? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Is EFI_WATCHDOG_TIMER_ARCH_PROTOCOL suitable for use > with a > > > > > >pure-hw > > > > > >> > > watchdog such as this? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > If so, what would be a suitable return code here? > > > > > >> > > EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER does not look ideal. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > / > > > > > >> > > Leif > > _______________________________________________ > > edk2-devel mailing list > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Flist > s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2- > devel&data=3D02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7C3b6ad3d8cfd > d4a766c4a08d53fd23a09%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0 > %7C636485094541353596&sdata=3DPQunSMPo4zejX997rje2fys4r93Wnrogz1rEi > vpcrLY%3D&reserved=3D0 > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Flist > s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2- > devel&data=3D02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7C3b6ad3d8cfd > d4a766c4a08d53fd23a09%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0 > %7C636485094541353596&sdata=3DPQunSMPo4zejX997rje2fys4r93Wnrogz1rEi > vpcrLY%3D&reserved=3D0