On 2019-11-07 11:18, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
+ (qcom_smc_convention == SMC_CONVENTION_ARM_64) ?
+ ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64 :
+ ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,
Here SMC_CONVENTION_UNKNOWN would mean ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32...
Idea is that __qcom_scm_call_smccc would only be called if
qcom_smc_convention
is SMC_CONVENTION_ARM_64 or _32. It should not be possible to get into
__qcom_scm_call_smccc with the current convention being
SMC_CONVENTION_UNKNOWN.
desc->owner,
SMCCC_FUNCNUM(desc->svc, desc->cmd));
smc.a[1] = desc->arginfo;
@@ -117,7 +125,7 @@ static int ___qcom_scm_call_smccc(struct device
*dev,
if (!args_virt)
return -ENOMEM;
- if (qcom_smccc_convention == ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32) {
+ if (qcom_smc_convention == SMC_CONVENTION_ARM_32) {
...but here it would mean ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64.
I will clean up to be consistent what the "else" case is.
@@ -583,19 +591,17 @@ int __qcom_scm_qsmmu500_wait_safe_toggle(struct
device *dev, bool en)
void __qcom_scm_init(void)
{
- u64 cmd;
- struct arm_smccc_res res;
- u32 function = SMCCC_FUNCNUM(QCOM_SCM_SVC_INFO,
QCOM_SCM_INFO_IS_CALL_AVAIL);
-
- /* First try a SMC64 call */
- cmd = ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL, ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64,
- ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_SIP, function);
-
- arm_smccc_smc(cmd, QCOM_SCM_ARGS(1), cmd &
(~BIT(ARM_SMCCC_TYPE_SHIFT)),
- 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
-
- if (!res.a0 && res.a1)
- qcom_smccc_convention = ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64;
- else
- qcom_smccc_convention = ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32;
+ qcom_smc_convention = SMC_CONVENTION_ARM_64;
+ if (__qcom_scm_is_call_available(NULL, QCOM_SCM_SVC_INFO,
+ QCOM_SCM_INFO_IS_CALL_AVAIL) == 1)
+ goto out;
+
+ qcom_smc_convention = SMC_CONVENTION_ARM_32;
+ if (__qcom_scm_is_call_available(NULL, QCOM_SCM_SVC_INFO,
+ QCOM_SCM_INFO_IS_CALL_AVAIL) == 1)
+ goto out;
+
+ qcom_smc_convention = SMC_CONVENTION_UNKNOWN;
If above two tests can be considered reliable I would suggest that you
fail hard here instead.
Is the suggestion here to BUG out?
Thanks,
Elliot
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
