* Andrew F. Davis <afd@xxxxxx> [191216 22:34]: > On 12/16/19 4:04 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Andrew F. Davis <afd@xxxxxx> [191216 20:57]: > >> Looks like the TI quirk idea is not moving forward, even the QCOM quirk > >> looks like it may get kicked out. arm_smccc_smc() will remain only for > >> SMCCC compliant calls, but it looks like a generic arm_smc() wouldn't be > >> too opposed upstream. > > > > Yes so it seems. > > > >> Either way this patch would still be valid as when OP-TEE is present > >> then arm_smccc_smc() will be the right call to make, how we handle the > >> legacy calls can be sorted out later if a generic SMC call is implemented. > > > > Please see my comment regarding this patch earlier in this thread > > pasted below for convenience: > > > > * Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [191119 16:22]: > >> In any case, you should do the necessary checks for HAVE_ARM_SMCCC > >> only once during init. I'm not sure how much checking for > >> "/firmware/optee" helps here, sounds like we have a broken system > >> if the firmware is not there while the arm_smccc_smc() should > >> still work just fine :) > > > > So only check once during init. And during init, you should probably > > also check that arm_smccc_smc() actually infd optee if > > "/firmware/optee" is set, and only then set set the right function > > pointer or some flag. > > > > Okay, I'll check only once and make sure the node is "okay". Yes we don't want to parse the dts over and over. > I'll do the check during the first call to an SMC caller, I wouldn't > want to pollute the OMAP generic init code for something that is only > called on HS platforms, plus these SMC calls are rare (only 3 calls > during boot of AM57x for instance) so performance is not critical, so I > don't want to do anything fancy like code patching :), I'll just use a flag. Please just add omap_early_initcall() to omap-secure.c while at it to deal with this. Regards, Tony
