On 07/30/2013 12:02 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:54:16AM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
>> index 1b6e0ac..7b0619e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
>> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
>> #include <asm/bootm.h>
>> #include <linux/compiler.h>
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC
>> +#include <asm/armv7.h>
>> +#endif
>> +
>> DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>>
>> static struct tag *params;
>> @@ -186,6 +190,29 @@ static void setup_end_tag(bd_t *bd)
>>
>> __weak void setup_board_tags(struct tag **in_params) {}
>>
>> +static void do_nonsec_virt_switch(void)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = armv7_switch_nonsec();
>> + switch (ret) {
>> + case NONSEC_VIRT_SUCCESS:
>> + debug("entered non-secure state\n");
>> + break;
>> + case NONSEC_ERR_NO_SEC_EXT:
>> + printf("nonsec: Security extensions not implemented.\n");
>> + break;
>> + case NONSEC_ERR_NO_GIC_ADDRESS:
>> + printf("nonsec: could not determine GIC address.\n");
>> + break;
>> + case NONSEC_ERR_GIC_ADDRESS_ABOVE_4GB:
>> + printf("nonsec: PERIPHBASE is above 4 GB, no access.\n");
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +#endif
>> +}
>
> I still don't get why you just don't make armv7_switch_nonsec a void and
> print the error when they occur... ???
My apologies for not elaborating on these comments I didn't incorporate:
So, I don't like the idea of marrying a low-level routine with high
level output. I don't want to constraint the usage of the routine by
requiring an output channel. Also some parts may not be fatal for all
users - someone could just try to switch and then behave differently if
that failed - without bothering the user.
May seem a bit over-engineered, but I like it better this way ;-)
If that is a show-stopper for you, I can change it, of course.
Regards,
Andre.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
