On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/29, Rob Clark wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c
>> index c1e4325..e1ac97f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c
>> @@ -500,6 +500,59 @@ int __qcom_scm_hdcp_req(struct qcom_scm_hdcp_req *req, u32 req_cnt, u32 *resp)
>> req, req_cnt * sizeof(*req), resp, sizeof(*resp));
>> }
>>
>> +int __qcom_scm_ocmem_secure_cfg(unsigned sec_id)
>> +{
>> + int ret, scm_ret = 0;
>> + struct msm_scm_sec_cfg {
>
> We've left these as anonymous structs for things like
> qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(), maybe we should do the same here.
>
>> + __le32 id;
>> + __le32 spare;
>
> Also, the iommu driver would use this API and it uses this
> "spare" element, so perhaps this whole function should be renamed
> to be more generic and take two values. Downstream the function
> is called scm_restore_sec_cfg, so maybe something similar. And
> the service id is MP for "memory protection", so
> QCOM_SCM_OCMEM_SECURE_SVC could be QCOM_SCM_MEMORY_PROTECTION?
heh,
#define SCM_SVC_MP 0xC
#define IOMMU_SECURE_CFG 2
vs.
#define OCMEM_SECURE_SVC_ID 12
#define OCMEM_SECURE_CFG_ID 0x2
that wasn't obscure at all!
Maybe then there is a better name than spare? Looks like downstream
iommu calls it cb_num?
BR,
-R
> Otherwise this patch looks good.
>
>> + } cfg;
>> +
>> + cfg.id = cpu_to_le32(sec_id);
>> +
>> + ret = qcom_scm_call(QCOM_SCM_OCMEM_SECURE_SVC, QCOM_SCM_OCMEM_SECURE_CFG,
>> + &cfg, sizeof(cfg), &scm_ret, sizeof(scm_ret));
>> +
>> + if (ret || scm_ret)
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
