On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:19:27PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:33:25 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:43:31PM +0530, srinidhi kasagar wrote:
> > > Add 'smc' (Secure Monitor Call) identifier to differentiates
> > > the platforms which implements this.
> >
> > This patch makes no sense.
> >
> > So, if setting 'smc' in the DT description is supposed to mean that
> > the platform has a secure monitor then...
> >
> > > + is_smc = of_property_read_bool(np, "smc");
> > > +
> > > + if (is_smc) {
> > > + /* set the debug interface */
> > > + outer_cache.set_debug = pl310_set_debug;
> > > + }
> >
> > Now, let's look at what pl310_set_debug() does:
> >
> > static void pl310_set_debug(unsigned long val)
> > {
> > writel_relaxed(val, l2x0_base + L2X0_DEBUG_CTRL);
>
> You can do this operation (write to DEBUG_CTRL) only if SMC is implemented.
Err... no. You can do it if you're running in secure mode without a
secure monitor, because the security stuff doesn't get in the way.
What other platforms do is up to them, and up to *how* the secure monitor
is implemented, not *if*.
> > }
> >
> > Can you explain where the secure monitor call is there please, because
> > I can't see one. In fact, this is the function used when there _isn't_
> > a secure monitor. So this patch just seems totally wrong to me.
So this is going to be difficult because you only ever answer half an
email? So, I repeat the question above.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
