On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:18:21AM +0100, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> + linux-arm, Russell and Catalin >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Joe Woodward <jw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > The latest uBoot release (2011.12) disables the L2/outer cache during boot on OMAP boards. >> > >> > uBoot commit: "armv7: disable L2 cache in cleanup_before_linux()" on 6th Dec 2011 by Aneesh V adds the following to >> > uBootSources/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cpu.c:cleanup_before_linux(): >> > ... >> > v7_out_cache_disable(); >> > >> > The commit message implies this change was to make booting reliable on OMAP4 by disabling L2 cache before jumping to Linux. Sadly >> > this commit also affects OMAP3-based boards... >> > >> > Since switching to uBoot 2011.12 I'm seeing about half the performance on my GUSMTIX Overo (OMAP3530). >> > >> > In the kernel sources there seem to be OMAP4 specific functions for re-enabling the L2 cache (omap4-common.c:omap_l2_cache_init()), >> > but none for OMAP3. >> > >> > So my question is... do we expect that Linux should be re-enabling the L2/outer cache during boot after uBoot has disabled it on OMAP3? >> > >> Yes. Kernel already does enabled L2 on A8 CPU's but OMAP3 needs a >> secure call and then the patching becomes >> that much difficult. >> >> We need some kind of generic hook in proc*_setup() function where in >> such secure bits can be turned ON. > > You can't have that kind of hook: there is no stack here to call other > functions, plus we aren't running with the MMU on at that point so > only carefully crafted assembly could be used. > This code will be in assembly and that's what I have been using. Not having stack shoudn't be a blocker and can be work-around in this code. And this API has to be anyway called before MMU is enabled. > Why is it soo difficult to issue the secure call? > Nothing difficult. It is just that there is no place today where platform can call these secure API's Call where ? > This just proves my point that the lack of consistent secure monitor API > for these kinds of basic service _are_ a big problem, one which ARM Ltd > should have addressed when they invented this stuff. My view continues > to be that the secure monitor API is a total abortion, one which should > never have been allowed to happen. Am not sure what you mean because secure API as such isn't a problem. If you mean one standard interface for all the ARM SOC's then that's something won't be easy to handled because it is tied up the security architecture which can vary across SoCs. Regards Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
