On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 13:22:56 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:19:27PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:33:25 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:43:31PM +0530, srinidhi kasagar wrote: > > > > Add 'smc' (Secure Monitor Call) identifier to differentiates > > > > the platforms which implements this. > > > > > > This patch makes no sense. > > > > > > So, if setting 'smc' in the DT description is supposed to mean that > > > the platform has a secure monitor then... > > > > > > > + is_smc = of_property_read_bool(np, "smc"); > > > > + > > > > + if (is_smc) { > > > > + /* set the debug interface */ > > > > + outer_cache.set_debug = pl310_set_debug; > > > > + } > > > > > > Now, let's look at what pl310_set_debug() does: > > > > > > static void pl310_set_debug(unsigned long val) > > > { > > > writel_relaxed(val, l2x0_base + L2X0_DEBUG_CTRL); > > > > You can do this operation (write to DEBUG_CTRL) only if SMC is implemented. > > Err... no. You can do it if you're running in secure mode without a > secure monitor, because the security stuff doesn't get in the way. Yes, you are right as always. I was totally wrong, I overlooked the code. I will drop this patch, it does not make sense. > > What other platforms do is up to them, and up to *how* the secure monitor > is implemented, not *if*. > > > > } > > > > > > Can you explain where the secure monitor call is there please, because > > > I can't see one. In fact, this is the function used when there _isn't_ > > > a secure monitor. So this patch just seems totally wrong to me. > > So this is going to be difficult because you only ever answer half an > email? So, I repeat the question above. Yes, there is no secure monitor call. I mixed up two things and end up in a mess. Thanks,srinidhi -- 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