On Thu 07 Nov 12:20 PST 2019, eberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2019-11-07 11:18, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
> > > @@ -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?
>
We generally do not want that, but leaving it "unknown" feels like the
next scm call will have similar outcome to calling BUG() here, but be
harder to debug...
So I would be willing to accept a BUG() here.
Regards,
Bjorn
