Hi!
> +u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
> + u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
> +{
> + u32 ret;
> + u32 param[5];
> +
> + param[0] = nargs+1;
> + param[1] = arg1;
> + param[2] = arg2;
> + param[3] = arg3;
> + param[4] = arg4;
> +
> + /*
> + * Secure API needs physical address
> + * pointer for the parameters
> + */
> + flush_cache_all();
> + outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
> + ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
You can do without ret variable... Also more detailed changelog would
be nice... like what exact problem this works around.
<google>
So... some CPU errata where code sharing virtual addresses could be
executed improperly?
> @@ -103,6 +104,12 @@ static void __init rx51_init(void)
> rx51_peripherals_init();
> rx51_camera_init();
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling ARM errata 430973 workaround.\n");
> + /* set IBE to 1 */
> + rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(1 << 6, 0);
> +#endif
> +
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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
