Hi Marc,
On 03/07/2017 01:11 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07 2017 at 4:07:05 am GMT, Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>
wrote:
From: Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>
As per GICv3 Architecture specification 8.9.4 field descriptions,
GICD_CTLR_ARE_NS is bit[5]. This patch correct the same.
Fixes: 021f6537 ("irqchip: gic-v3: Initial support for GICv3")
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
index e808f8a..4aaf639 100644
--- a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
+++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
#define GICD_CTLR_RWP (1U << 31)
#define GICD_CTLR_DS (1U << 6)
-#define GICD_CTLR_ARE_NS (1U << 4)
+#define GICD_CTLR_ARE_NS (1U << 5)
#define GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A (1U << 1)
#define GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1 (1U << 0)
No, the issue is much more subtle.
- When the access is secure in a system that supports two security
states, this is bit[5] indeed.
- When the access is non-secure in a system that supports two security
states, this is bit[4] (so that software written for a single security
mode can run on both side of the security fence).
- In a system that only supports a single security state, this is bit[4]
too.
Given that Linux is only designed to run on the non-secure side (at
least when paired with GICv3), I stand by my original bit layout.
Ok, got it, thanks for clarification.
Thanks,
M.
