On 12/02/14 08:36, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Albert, > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:47:31 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD > <albert.u.boot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Marc, >> >> On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:19:12 +0000, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue: >>> it cannot run in secure RAM, as a large part of u-boot still needs >>> to be run while we're switched to non-secure. >>> >>> This patch reworks the whole HYP/non-secure strategy by: >>> - making sure the secure code is the *last* thing u-boot executes >>> before entering the payload >>> - performing an exception return from secure mode directly into >>> the payload >>> - allowing the code to be dynamically relocated to secure RAM >>> before switching to non-secure. >>> >>> This involves quite a bit of horrible code, specially as u-boot >>> relocation is quite primitive. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/nonsec_virt.S | 161 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/virt-v7.c | 59 +++++--------- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/armv7.h | 10 ++- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/secure.h | 26 +++++++ >>> arch/arm/lib/bootm.c | 21 ++--- >>> 5 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 141 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/secure.h >> >> It seems like patch 07/13 does not apply properly on top of current ARM. >> Can you have a look? If a rebased V3 is needed, you can remove patch 01 >> from the list (or if it is simpler to you, keep it in and I'll just >> ignore it when applying). > > I don't think there was a V3 for this so far; correct? Correct. I've been lazy. I'll try to repost something by the end of the week. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
