On 06/10/2013 03:14 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:11:15PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> I think we need to separate the concept of support for *a* secure >>>>> monitor, from support for a *particular* secure monitor. >>>> >>>> Agreed. In this case, can we assume that support for a specific secure >>>> monitor is not arch-specific, and that this patch should be moved >>>> outside of arch-tegra and down to arch/arm? In other words, the ABI of >>>> a particular secure monitor should be the same no matter the chip, >>>> shouldn't it? >>> >>> I would like to believe that the Trusted Foundations monitor had the >>> same ABI irrespective of which Soc it was running on. However, I have >>> absolutely no idea at all if that's true. Even if there's some common >>> subset of the ABI that is identical across all SoCs, I wouldn't be too >>> surprised if there were custom extensions for each different SoC, or >>> just perhaps even each product. >>> >>> Can you research this and find out the answer? >> >> Will do. Information about TF is scarce unfortunately. > > The answer is... there isn't a common ABI. That is something I pressed > ARM Ltd for when this stuff first appeared and they were adamant that > they were not going to specify any kind of ABI for this interface. Right, there certainly isn't a common ABI across all secure monitors, but in this case I was wondering something more specific: whether for this specific implementation/provider of a secure monitor, if they had a consistent ABI across all SoCs (or even boards) that they implemented it on. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html