On Wednesday 06 March 2013 20:13:15 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 March 2013 18:51:21 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [130306 06:13]:
> > > On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > * 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
> > >
> > > Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
> >
> > Sorry don't have the link available, but I recall seeing
> > some patch on linux-arm-kernel within past six months that
> > added a generic smc function.. Or maybe I was dreaming or
> > something.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tony
>
> I am not able to find that patch...
Hi Tony,
it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
