On 6/2/2017 11:52 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 06/02, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
Two different processors on a SOC need to switch memory ownership
during load/unload. To enable this, level second memory map table
second level page tables instead of level second memory map table
OK
need to be updated, which is done by secure layer.
This patch add the interface for making secure monitor call for
s/add/adds/
OK.
memory ownership switching request.
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
index bb16510..9da3c6d 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
@@ -292,6 +304,86 @@ int qcom_scm_pas_shutdown(u32 peripheral)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_scm_pas_shutdown);
+/**
+ * qcom_scm_assign_mem() - Make a secure call to reassign memory ownership
+ *
+ * @mem_addr: mem region whose ownership need to be reassigned
+ * @mem_sz: size of the region.
+ * @srcvm: vmid for current set of owners, each set bit in
+ * flag indicate a unique owner
+ * @newvm: array having new owners and corrsponding permission
+ * flags
+ * @dest_cnt: number of owners in next set.
+ * Return next set of owners on success.
+ */
+int qcom_scm_assign_mem(phys_addr_t mem_addr, size_t mem_sz, int srcvm,
+ struct qcom_scm_vmperm *newvm, int dest_cnt)
+{
+ unsigned long dma_attrs = DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS;
+ struct qcom_scm_current_perm_info *destvm;
+ struct qcom_scm_mem_map_info *mem;
+ phys_addr_t memory_phys;
+ phys_addr_t dest_phys;
+ phys_addr_t src_phys;
+ size_t mem_all_sz;
+ size_t memory_sz;
+ size_t dest_sz;
+ size_t src_sz;
+ int next_vm;
+ __le32 *src;
+ void *ptr;
+ int ret;
+ int i;
Yay reverse christmas tre.
Shall be reversed?
+
+ src_sz = hweight_long(srcvm)*sizeof(*src);
Please add space around that '*':
OK
src_sz = hweight_long(srcvm) * sizeof(*src);
+ memory_sz = sizeof(*mem);
+ dest_sz = dest_cnt*sizeof(*destvm);
+ mem_all_sz = src_sz + memory_sz + dest_sz;
+
+ ptr = dma_alloc_attrs(__scm->dev, ALIGN(mem_all_sz, SZ_64),
+ &src_phys, GFP_KERNEL, dma_attrs);
+ if (!ptr) {
+ pr_err("mem alloc failed\n");
We don't want memory allocation failure prints. Please remove.
OK
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
Newline here!
OK
+ /* Fill source vmid detail */
+ src = (__le32 *)(ptr);
Drop useless parenthesis around ptr please.
OK
+ ret = hweight_long(srcvm);
len = hweight_long(...)?
OK, thought to use less local variables. will change
+ for (i = 0; i < ret; i++) {
i to ret is really weird looking!
Will check if can use below suggestion
+ src[i] = cpu_to_le32(ffs(srcvm) - 1);
+ srcvm ^= 1 << (ffs(srcvm) - 1);
+ }
What if the loop was written like:
for_each_set_bit(i, &srcvm, sizeof(srcvm))
src[i] = cpu_to_le32(i);
I guess srvcm would have to be a long then.
Will check and adopt
+
+ /* Fill details of mem buff to map */
+ mem = (struct qcom_scm_mem_map_info *)(ptr + ALIGN(src_sz, SZ_64));
Useless cast from void *.
OK
+ memory_phys = src_phys + ALIGN(src_sz, SZ_64);
+ mem[0].mem_addr = cpu_to_le64(mem_addr);
+ mem[0].mem_size = cpu_to_le64(mem_sz);
+
+ next_vm = 0;
+ /* Fill details of next vmid detail */
+ destvm = (struct qcom_scm_current_perm_info *)
+ (ptr + ALIGN(memory_sz, SZ_64) + ALIGN(src_sz, SZ_64));
Useless cast from void.
OK
+ dest_phys = memory_phys + ALIGN(memory_sz, SZ_64);
+ for (i = 0; i < dest_cnt; i++) {
+ destvm[i].vmid = cpu_to_le32(newvm[i].vmid);
+ destvm[i].perm = cpu_to_le32(newvm[i].perm);
+ destvm[i].ctx = 0;
+ destvm[i].ctx_size = 0;
+ next_vm |= BIT(newvm[i].vmid);
+ }
Newline please!
OK
+ ret = __qcom_scm_assign_mem(__scm->dev, memory_phys,
+ memory_sz, src_phys, src_sz, dest_phys, dest_sz);
+ dma_free_attrs(__scm->dev, ALIGN(mem_all_sz, SZ_64),
+ ptr, src_phys, dma_attrs);
+ if (ret == 0)
+ return next_vm;
+ else if (ret > 0)
+ return -ret;
When is ret > 0?
SCM returns positive value in r1 register , and if r1 reg is non zero
then that should be returned.
Not sure what that indicate.
+ return ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_scm_assign_mem);
+
static int qcom_scm_pas_reset_assert(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
unsigned long idx)
{
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
