On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:16:42PM -0500, Andy Gross wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:38:41AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:31PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > This all comes about because the firmware generates a session id
> > > for the SMC call and jams it in x6. The assembly on the
> > > non-secure side is written with a tight loop around the smc
> > > instruction so that when the return value indicates
> > > "interrupted", x6 is kept intact and the non-secure OS can jump
> > > back to the secure OS without register reloading. Perhaps
> > > referring to x6 as result value is not correct because it's
> > > really a session id that's irrelevant once the smc call
> > > completes.
> >
> > Sorry I missed this bit. The session id is _generated_ by secure
> > firmware (probably only when the value passed in x6 == 0 (?))
> > and actually returned to the caller so that subsequent (interrupted)
> > calls can re-issue the same value, is that correct ?
> >
> > If that's the case the value in x6 is a result value from an SMCCC
> > perspective and your current FW is not SMCCC compliant.
> >
>
> So is Will's solution to this ok? If so I will respin with the minor change to
> get it working and resend. If not, do I roll my own smccc wrapper?
Obviously I'm biased, but I prefer to handle this as a quirk to make it
clear that it's a vendor-specific extension to the SMCCC, so if you
could post a patch based on the diff I sent, that would be great.
You'll also need to:
(1) Make sure you don't break 32-bit ARM
(2) Make sure that struct arm_smccc_res is always zero-initialised by
its other users (to ensure that QUIRK_NONE is set). In fact, it
might be nicer to pass the quirk structure as a separate argument,
rather than embed it in arm_smccc_res.
Will
--
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
