On Tuesday 17 September 2013 17:43:31 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> [130916 10:18]:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:37:12AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Sunday 08 September 2013 09:43:29 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > +ENTRY(omap_smc3)
> > > > + stmfd sp!, {r4-r11, lr}
> > > > + mov r12, r0 @ Copy the secure service ID
> > > > + mov r6, #0xff @ Indicate new Task call
> > > > + dsb @ Memory Barrier (not sure if needed, copied
> > > > from omap_smc2) + smc #1 @ Call PPA service
> > > > + ldmfd sp!, {r4-r11, pc}
> > > > +ENDPROC(omap_smc3)
> > > > +
> > > >
> > > > ENTRY(omap_modify_auxcoreboot0)
> > > >
> > > > stmfd sp!, {r1-r12, lr}
> > > > ldr r12, =0x104
> > >
> > > Dave, it is ok now?
> >
> > Yes, that's sufficient to warn people to stop and think (at
> > least, if someone copy-pastes it, they will likely
> > highlight the possible error by copy-pasting the comment
> > too). Thanks.
> >
> > Acked-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx>
>
> Have you guys checked how this works with the recently posted
> "[PATCH v6 0/5] ARM: support for Trusted Foundations secure
> monitor" series?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
Hello,
this code looks like some Tegra and "Trusted Foundations"
specific. There is Note: The API followed by Trusted Foundations
does *not* follow the SMC calling conventions. Also code calling
smc #0 instruction, so in my opinion for rx51 it is useless.
Tony, can you include this two rx51 secure patches (patch v4 1/2
and patch v2 2/2)? Or is there some any other problem?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
