* Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> [130301 06:42]:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров <freemangordon@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major difference is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
> >
> >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> >> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> >> mov r3, r2
> >> mov r2, r1
> >> mov r1, #0x0 @ Process ID
> >> mov r6, #0xff
> >> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
> >
> > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
> >
> >> mov r7, #0
> >> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> >
> > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch predictor array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR is set.
> >
> >> dsb
> >> dmb
> >> smc #0
> >
> > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> >
> >> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> >
> >
> > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in R3[0] to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the remaining parameters.
> >
> > I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> >
> >
>
> Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new functions,
> extending the existing functions to handle new requirements is better
> solution, IMHO.
I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
is different for various SoCs?
Regards,
Tony
--
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
