Hi Ian,
On 10/22/2014 08:55 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 15:45 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> if (!fake) {
>> #if defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC) || defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_VIRT)
>> - armv7_init_nonsec();
>> - secure_ram_addr(_do_nonsec_entry)(kernel_entry,
>> - 0, machid, r2);
>> -#else
>> - kernel_entry(0, machid, r2);
>> + if (boot_nonsec()) {
>> + armv7_init_nonsec();
>> + secure_ram_addr(_do_nonsec_entry)(kernel_entry,
>> + 0, machid, r2);
>> + }
>> #endif
>> + kernel_entry(0, machid, r2);
>
> There's a subtle different here, which is that this final kernel_entry
> call used to be in the #else clause, and so emitted for the NONSEC ||
> VIRT case. So if the _do_nonsec_entry call were to fail (not currently
> possible) and return you'd end up trying again via the sec path.
>
> I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it is a difference so it'd be good
> to know it was a deliberate choice (or not).
I was under the assumption that do_nonsec_entry would never fail, and would
not return, which is why I wrote this code the way I wrote it. I'm not sure
if retrying in secure mode meets the principle of least surprise, so I guess
the #if .. #endif block should probably get an "else" added before the #endif,
do you agree?
Regards,
Hans
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
