On 09/23/14 10:45, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 09/23/14 09:47, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The secure environment only runs in little-endian mode, so any
>>>> buffers shared with the secure environment should have their
>>>> contents converted to little-endian. We also mark such elements
>>>> with __le32 to allow sparse to catch such problems.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/soc/qcom/scm-boot.c | 8 ++++----
>>>> drivers/soc/qcom/scm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/scm-boot.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/scm-boot.c
>>>> index 60ff7b482141..3e4d77b371c6 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/scm-boot.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/scm-boot.c
>>>> @@ -27,12 +27,12 @@
>>>> int scm_set_boot_addr(phys_addr_t addr, int flags)
>>>> {
>>>> struct {
>>>> - unsigned int flags;
>>>> - phys_addr_t addr;
>>>> + __le32 flags;
>>>> + __le32 addr;
>>> Hmm, was phys_addr_t wrong here before? I ask because don’t we support LPAE on some systems?
>> Yes it was wrong. It is exactly 32 bits wide.
> So we should probably have a patch to fix the interface scm_set_boot_addr() to take a u32 addr instead of a phys_addr_t
>
Sure I can send a patch for that too.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
