Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Hi! > >You can do without ret variable... Also more detailed changelog would > >be nice... like what exact problem this works around. > > > > Sure i can, but I don't see a reason to ignore SM's return value. Changelog > of what? > > I guess if you read the thread over the ML you'll have your questions already > answered. > Or google for "ARM errata 430973 workaround" :). I did my googling. But I should not have had to. Just put the explanatory link in commit log. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Hi! You can do without ret variable... Also more detailed changelog would be nice... like what exact problem this works around. Sure i can, but I don't see a reason to ignore SM's return value. Changelog of what? I guess if you read the thread over the ML you'll have your questions already answered. Or google for ARM errata 430973 workaround :). I did my googling. But I should not have had to. Just put the explanatory link in commit log. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Hi,
> Оригинално писмо
>От: Pavel Machek
>Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
>До: Pali Rohár
>Изпратено на: Събота, 2013, Март 30 20:36:54 EET
>
>
>Hi!
>
>> +u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32
>> arg2,
>> + u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
>> +{
>> + u32 ret;
>> + u32 param[5];
>> +
>> + param[0] = nargs+1;
>> + param[1] = arg1;
>> + param[2] = arg2;
>> + param[3] = arg3;
>> + param[4] = arg4;
>> +
>> + /*
>> +* Secure API needs physical address
>> +* pointer for the parameters
>> +*/
>> + flush_cache_all();
>> + outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
>> + ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
>You can do without ret variable... Also more detailed changelog would
>be nice... like what exact problem this works around.
>
Sure i can, but I don't see a reason to ignore SM's return value. Changelog of
what?
>
>
>So... some CPU errata where code sharing virtual addresses could be
>executed improperly?
>
>> @@ -103,6 +104,12 @@ static void __init rx51_init(void)
>> rx51_peripherals_init();
>> rx51_camera_init();
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973
>> + printk(KERN_INFO Enabling ARM errata 430973
>> workaround.n);
>> + /* set IBE to 1 */
>> + rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(1 << 6, 0);
>> +#endif
>> +
>
>Thanks,
> Pavel
>
>--
>(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
>(cesky, pictures)
>http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
>
I guess if you read the thread over the ML you'll have your questions already
answered.
Or google for "ARM errata 430973 workaround" :).
Regards,
Ivo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Hi!
> +u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
> +u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
> +{
> + u32 ret;
> + u32 param[5];
> +
> + param[0] = nargs+1;
> + param[1] = arg1;
> + param[2] = arg2;
> + param[3] = arg3;
> + param[4] = arg4;
> +
> + /*
> + * Secure API needs physical address
> + * pointer for the parameters
> + */
> + flush_cache_all();
> + outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
> + ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
You can do without ret variable... Also more detailed changelog would
be nice... like what exact problem this works around.
So... some CPU errata where code sharing virtual addresses could be
executed improperly?
> @@ -103,6 +104,12 @@ static void __init rx51_init(void)
> rx51_peripherals_init();
> rx51_camera_init();
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling ARM errata 430973 workaround.\n");
> + /* set IBE to 1 */
> + rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(1 << 6, 0);
> +#endif
> +
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Hi!
+u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
+u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
+{
+ u32 ret;
+ u32 param[5];
+
+ param[0] = nargs+1;
+ param[1] = arg1;
+ param[2] = arg2;
+ param[3] = arg3;
+ param[4] = arg4;
+
+ /*
+ * Secure API needs physical address
+ * pointer for the parameters
+ */
+ flush_cache_all();
+ outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
+ ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
+
+ return ret;
+}
You can do without ret variable... Also more detailed changelog would
be nice... like what exact problem this works around.
google
So... some CPU errata where code sharing virtual addresses could be
executed improperly?
@@ -103,6 +104,12 @@ static void __init rx51_init(void)
rx51_peripherals_init();
rx51_camera_init();
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973
+ printk(KERN_INFO Enabling ARM errata 430973 workaround.\n);
+ /* set IBE to 1 */
+ rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(1 6, 0);
+#endif
+
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Hi,
Оригинално писмо
От: Pavel Machek
Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
До: Pali Rohár
Изпратено на: Събота, 2013, Март 30 20:36:54 EET
Hi!
+u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32
arg2,
+ u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
+{
+ u32 ret;
+ u32 param[5];
+
+ param[0] = nargs+1;
+ param[1] = arg1;
+ param[2] = arg2;
+ param[3] = arg3;
+ param[4] = arg4;
+
+ /*
+* Secure API needs physical address
+* pointer for the parameters
+*/
+ flush_cache_all();
+ outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
+ ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
+
+ return ret;
+}
You can do without ret variable... Also more detailed changelog would
be nice... like what exact problem this works around.
Sure i can, but I don't see a reason to ignore SM's return value. Changelog of
what?
So... some CPU errata where code sharing virtual addresses could be
executed improperly?
@@ -103,6 +104,12 @@ static void __init rx51_init(void)
rx51_peripherals_init();
rx51_camera_init();
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973
+ printk(KERN_INFO quot;Enabling ARM errata 430973
workaround.#92;nquot;);
+ /* set IBE to 1 */
+ rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(1 6, 0);
+#endif
+
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
I guess if you read the thread over the ML you'll have your questions already
answered.
Or google for ARM errata 430973 workaround :).
Regards,
Ivo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Ивайло Димитров [130327 22:34]: > Tony, > > Who do you expect to make that code merge? Do you expect us to mechanically > merge RX51 PPA API patch with the existing generic OMAP PPA API code putting > #ifdefs all over the place? Not that it is impossible, but the only real > piece of HW I have here is n900, so I just can't be sure the code will still > work on the other platforms besides RX51, once the code modified. Please, > advice on how to proceed. Probably ifdefs won't work nice for other omapss. It seems that your original patch is pretty close based on all that's been discussed. Can you please repost with a proper patch description also summarizing why we cannot have generci SMC API as discussed? Thanks, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Santosh Shilimkar [130328 03:10]: > On Thursday 28 March 2013 03:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:56:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: > >>> it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? > >> > >> I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. > >> > >> AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various > >> implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters > >> seems like it should be generic. > > > > SMC calls vary greatly in how they are handled. The only thing that's > > generic is issuing the SMC call. All the setup and what arguments are > > required are completely different from SoC to SoC. > > > > For example, some SoCs require arguments passed via memory. Others like > > OMAP its via registers. > > Exactly. As somebody said on the list, that code looks identical but > it is not. An SMC with barrier instruction is mostly common and nothing > more than that. Thanks all, case closed then. There's no way to come up with a generic SMC function. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Thursday 28 March 2013 03:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:56:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: >>> it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? >> >> I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. >> >> AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various >> implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters >> seems like it should be generic. > > SMC calls vary greatly in how they are handled. The only thing that's > generic is issuing the SMC call. All the setup and what arguments are > required are completely different from SoC to SoC. > > For example, some SoCs require arguments passed via memory. Others like > OMAP its via registers. Exactly. As somebody said on the list, that code looks identical but it is not. An SMC with barrier instruction is mostly common and nothing more than that. Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:56:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: > > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? > > I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. > > AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various > implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters > seems like it should be generic. SMC calls vary greatly in how they are handled. The only thing that's generic is issuing the SMC call. All the setup and what arguments are required are completely different from SoC to SoC. For example, some SoCs require arguments passed via memory. Others like OMAP its via registers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:56:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: * Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130324 07:31]: it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. SMC calls vary greatly in how they are handled. The only thing that's generic is issuing the SMC call. All the setup and what arguments are required are completely different from SoC to SoC. For example, some SoCs require arguments passed via memory. Others like OMAP its via registers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Thursday 28 March 2013 03:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:56:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: * Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130324 07:31]: it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. SMC calls vary greatly in how they are handled. The only thing that's generic is issuing the SMC call. All the setup and what arguments are required are completely different from SoC to SoC. For example, some SoCs require arguments passed via memory. Others like OMAP its via registers. Exactly. As somebody said on the list, that code looks identical but it is not. An SMC with barrier instruction is mostly common and nothing more than that. Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com [130328 03:10]: On Thursday 28 March 2013 03:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:56:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: * Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130324 07:31]: it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. SMC calls vary greatly in how they are handled. The only thing that's generic is issuing the SMC call. All the setup and what arguments are required are completely different from SoC to SoC. For example, some SoCs require arguments passed via memory. Others like OMAP its via registers. Exactly. As somebody said on the list, that code looks identical but it is not. An SMC with barrier instruction is mostly common and nothing more than that. Thanks all, case closed then. There's no way to come up with a generic SMC function. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Ивайло Димитров freemangor...@abv.bg [130327 22:34]: Tony, Who do you expect to make that code merge? Do you expect us to mechanically merge RX51 PPA API patch with the existing generic OMAP PPA API code putting #ifdefs all over the place? Not that it is impossible, but the only real piece of HW I have here is n900, so I just can't be sure the code will still work on the other platforms besides RX51, once the code modified. Please, advice on how to proceed. Probably ifdefs won't work nice for other omapss. It seems that your original patch is pretty close based on all that's been discussed. Can you please repost with a proper patch description also summarizing why we cannot have generci SMC API as discussed? Thanks, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Tony, Who do you expect to make that code merge? Do you expect us to mechanically merge RX51 PPA API patch with the existing generic OMAP PPA API code putting #ifdefs all over the place? Not that it is impossible, but the only real piece of HW I have here is n900, so I just can't be sure the code will still work on the other platforms besides RX51, once the code modified. Please, advice on how to proceed. Regards, Ivo > Оригинално писмо >От: Tony Lindgren >Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround >До: Pali Rohár >Изпратено на: Сряда, 2013, Март 27 23:12:09 EET > > >* Pali Rohár [130327 14:09]: >> On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:56:07 Tony Lindgren wrote: >> > * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: >> > > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for >> > > RX-51? >> > >> > I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for >> > ARM. >> > >> > AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various >> > implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters >> > seems like it should be generic. >> > >> >> Not only, look at freemangordon's email: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/1/62 > >Seem like you may need some SoC specific wrapper to the >generic function to deal with the params. But still seems >like we can have an ARM generic smc funtion. > >Regards, > >Tony > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Pali Rohár [130327 14:09]: > On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:56:07 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: > > > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for > > > RX-51? > > > > I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for > > ARM. > > > > AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various > > implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters > > seems like it should be generic. > > > > Not only, look at freemangordon's email: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/1/62 Seem like you may need some SoC specific wrapper to the generic function to deal with the params. But still seems like we can have an ARM generic smc funtion. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:56:07 Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: > > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for > > RX-51? > > I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for > ARM. > > AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various > implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters > seems like it should be generic. > Not only, look at freemangordon's email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/1/62 > Regards, > > Tony -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:56:07 Tony Lindgren wrote: * Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130324 07:31]: it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Not only, look at freemangordon's email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/1/62 Regards, Tony -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130327 14:09]: On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:56:07 Tony Lindgren wrote: * Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130324 07:31]: it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Not only, look at freemangordon's email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/1/62 Seem like you may need some SoC specific wrapper to the generic function to deal with the params. But still seems like we can have an ARM generic smc funtion. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130324 07:31]: it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Tony, Who do you expect to make that code merge? Do you expect us to mechanically merge RX51 PPA API patch with the existing generic OMAP PPA API code putting #ifdefs all over the place? Not that it is impossible, but the only real piece of HW I have here is n900, so I just can't be sure the code will still work on the other platforms besides RX51, once the code modified. Please, advice on how to proceed. Regards, Ivo Оригинално писмо От: Tony Lindgren Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround До: Pali Rohár Изпратено на: Сряда, 2013, Март 27 23:12:09 EET * Pali Rohár [130327 14:09]: On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:56:07 Tony Lindgren wrote: * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Not only, look at freemangordon's email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/1/62 Seem like you may need some SoC specific wrapper to the generic function to deal with the params. But still seems like we can have an ARM generic smc funtion. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 20:13:15 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 March 2013 18:51:21 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Pali Rohár [130306 06:13]:
> > > On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > * Nishanth Menon [130301 06:42]:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :).
> > > > > > The first major difference is here (code taken from
> > > > > > omap-smc.S)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> > > > > >> mov r3, r2
> > > > > >> mov r2, r1
> > > > > >> mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
> > > > > >> mov r6, #0xff
> > > > > >> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service
> > > > > >> ID
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I
> > > > > > wonder if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id
> > > > > > parameter (R0) used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> mov r7, #0
> > > > > >> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire
> > > > > > branch predictor array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed
> > > > > > here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit
> > > > > > in ACR is set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> dsb
> > > > > >> dmb
> > > > > >> smc #0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects
> > > > > > parameter count passed in R3[0] to be the count of
> > > > > > the remaining parameters +1, but
> > > > > > omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing
> > > > > > the exact count of the remaining parameters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess all of the above problems can be
> > > > > > fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not
> > > > > > to say that I don't have BB around to test if the
> > > > > > code still works if I make changes to
> > > > > > omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
> > > > > functions, extending the existing functions to handle
> > > > > new requirements is better solution, IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic
> > > > SMC handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and
> > > > see if this can be made generic. I think only the SMC
> > > > call numbering is different for various SoCs?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > >
> > > Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
> >
> > Sorry don't have the link available, but I recall seeing
> > some patch on linux-arm-kernel within past six months that
> > added a generic smc function.. Or maybe I was dreaming or
> > something.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tony
>
> I am not able to find that patch...
Hi Tony,
it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 20:13:15 Pali Rohár wrote:
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 18:51:21 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130306 06:13]:
On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com [130301 06:42]:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
freemangor...@abv.bg wrote:
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :).
The first major difference is here (code taken from
omap-smc.S)
ENTRY(omap_smc2)
stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
mov r6, #0xff
mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service
ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I
wonder if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id
parameter (R0) used.
mov r7, #0
mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is Invalidate entire
branch predictor array(IIUC). NFC why it is needed
here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit
in ACR is set.
dsb
dmb
smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects
parameter count passed in R3[0] to be the count of
the remaining parameters +1, but
omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing
the exact count of the remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be
fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not
to say that I don't have BB around to test if the
code still works if I make changes to
omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
functions, extending the existing functions to handle
new requirements is better solution, IMHO.
I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic
SMC handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and
see if this can be made generic. I think only the SMC
call numbering is different for various SoCs?
Regards,
Tony
Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
Sorry don't have the link available, but I recall seeing
some patch on linux-arm-kernel within past six months that
added a generic smc function.. Or maybe I was dreaming or
something.
Regards,
Tony
I am not able to find that patch...
Hi Tony,
it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 18:51:21 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Pali Rohár [130306 06:13]:
> > On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Nishanth Menon [130301 06:42]:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The
> > > > > first major difference is here (code taken from
> > > > > omap-smc.S)
> > > > >
> > > > >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> > > > >> mov r3, r2
> > > > >> mov r2, r1
> > > > >> mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
> > > > >> mov r6, #0xff
> > > > >> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
> > > > >
> > > > > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I
> > > > > wonder if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id
> > > > > parameter (R0) used.
> > > > >
> > > > >> mov r7, #0
> > > > >> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> > > > >
> > > > > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire
> > > > > branch predictor array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed
> > > > > here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit
> > > > > in ACR is set.
> > > > >
> > > > >> dsb
> > > > >> dmb
> > > > >> smc #0
> > > > >
> > > > > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> > > > >
> > > > >> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> > > > >
> > > > > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects
> > > > > parameter count passed in R3[0] to be the count of
> > > > > the remaining parameters +1, but
> > > > > omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing
> > > > > the exact count of the remaining parameters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess all of the above problems can be
> > > > > fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to
> > > > > say that I don't have BB around to test if the code
> > > > > still works if I make changes to
> > > > > omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> > > >
> > > > Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
> > > > functions, extending the existing functions to handle
> > > > new requirements is better solution, IMHO.
> > >
> > > I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
> > > handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
> > > this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call
> > > numbering is different for various SoCs?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Tony
> >
> > Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
>
> Sorry don't have the link available, but I recall seeing some
> patch on linux-arm-kernel within past six months that added a
> generic smc function.. Or maybe I was dreaming or something.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
I am not able to find that patch...
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Pali Rohár [130306 06:13]:
> On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Nishanth Menon [130301 06:42]:
> > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
> wrote:
> > > > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The
> > > > first major difference is here (code taken from
> > > > omap-smc.S)
> > > >
> > > >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> > > >>
> > > >> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> > > >> mov r3, r2
> > > >> mov r2, r1
> > > >> mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
> > > >> mov r6, #0xff
> > > >> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
> > > >
> > > > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder
> > > > if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id parameter
> > > > (R0) used.
> > > >
> > > >> mov r7, #0
> > > >> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> > > >
> > > > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch
> > > > predictor array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but
> > > > this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR is set.
> > > >
> > > >> dsb
> > > >> dmb
> > > >> smc #0
> > > >
> > > > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> > > >
> > > >> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> > > >
> > > > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter
> > > > count passed in R3[0] to be the count of the remaining
> > > > parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in
> > > > omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
> > > > remaining parameters.
> > > >
> > > > I guess all of the above problems can be
> > > > fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to
> > > > say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still
> > > > works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> > >
> > > Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
> > > functions, extending the existing functions to handle new
> > > requirements is better solution, IMHO.
> >
> > I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
> > handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
> > this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
> > is different for various SoCs?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tony
>
> Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
Sorry don't have the link available, but I recall seeing some patch
on linux-arm-kernel within past six months that added a generic
smc function.. Or maybe I was dreaming or something.
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Menon [130301 06:42]:
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
wrote:
> > > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The
> > > first major difference is here (code taken from
> > > omap-smc.S)
> > >
> > >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> > >>
> > >> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> > >> mov r3, r2
> > >> mov r2, r1
> > >> mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
> > >> mov r6, #0xff
> > >> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
> > >
> > > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder
> > > if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id parameter
> > > (R0) used.
> > >
> > >> mov r7, #0
> > >> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> > >
> > > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch
> > > predictor array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but
> > > this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR is set.
> > >
> > >> dsb
> > >> dmb
> > >> smc #0
> > >
> > > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> > >
> > >> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> > >
> > > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter
> > > count passed in R3[0] to be the count of the remaining
> > > parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in
> > > omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
> > > remaining parameters.
> > >
> > > I guess all of the above problems can be
> > > fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to
> > > say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still
> > > works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> >
> > Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
> > functions, extending the existing functions to handle new
> > requirements is better solution, IMHO.
>
> I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
> handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
> this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
> is different for various SoCs?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
> Оригинално писмо >От: Aaro Koskinen >Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround >До: Ивайло Димитров >Изпратено на: Събота, 2013, Март 2 01:51:39 EET > > >On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:09:12PM +0200, Ивайло Димитров wrote: >> Unfortunately it is necessary, on RX-51 PPA/NOLO leaves IBE bit unset. > >You sure? I think you need to explain this more - the commit message in >the original patch is empty/missing... > >A. > Yes, I am sure, NOLO leaves IBE bit in ACR unset, I've verified that by reading/printing the contents of ACR from both u-boot and the kernel itself. With IBE bit unset, "mcr p15, 0, rX, c7, c5, 6" - flush BTAC/BTB instruction(which is needed to workaround errata 430973) is a noop. Yes, I am sure, IBE but must be set by using a call to PPA, on RX-51 setting that bit from the kernel (as it is done in the "ARM errata: Stale prediction on replaced interworking branch" kernel patch, see http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git-commits-head/2009/5/3/5622724) does not work, see the comment at the end: "Note that setting specific bits in the ACTLR register may not be available in non-secure mode.". This is exactly the case for RX-51. I've verified that too. If you need anything else elaborated on, I'm fine, just ask :) Regards, Ivo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Оригинално писмо От: Aaro Koskinen Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround До: Ивайло Димитров Изпратено на: Събота, 2013, Март 2 01:51:39 EET On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:09:12PM +0200, Ивайло Димитров wrote: Unfortunately it is necessary, on RX-51 PPA/NOLO leaves IBE bit unset. You sure? I think you need to explain this more - the commit message in the original patch is empty/missing... A. Yes, I am sure, NOLO leaves IBE bit in ACR unset, I've verified that by reading/printing the contents of ACR from both u-boot and the kernel itself. With IBE bit unset, mcr p15, 0, rX, c7, c5, 6 - flush BTAC/BTB instruction(which is needed to workaround errata 430973) is a noop. Yes, I am sure, IBE but must be set by using a call to PPA, on RX-51 setting that bit from the kernel (as it is done in the ARM errata: Stale prediction on replaced interworking branch kernel patch, see http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git-commits-head/2009/5/3/5622724) does not work, see the comment at the end: Note that setting specific bits in the ACTLR register may not be available in non-secure mode.. This is exactly the case for RX-51. I've verified that too. If you need anything else elaborated on, I'm fine, just ask :) Regards, Ivo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com [130301 06:42]:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
freemangor...@abv.bg wrote:
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The
first major difference is here (code taken from
omap-smc.S)
ENTRY(omap_smc2)
stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
mov r6, #0xff
mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder
if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id parameter
(R0) used.
mov r7, #0
mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is Invalidate entire branch
predictor array(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but
this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR is set.
dsb
dmb
smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter
count passed in R3[0] to be the count of the remaining
parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in
omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be
fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to
say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still
works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
functions, extending the existing functions to handle new
requirements is better solution, IMHO.
I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
is different for various SoCs?
Regards,
Tony
Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130306 06:13]:
On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com [130301 06:42]:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
freemangor...@abv.bg wrote:
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The
first major difference is here (code taken from
omap-smc.S)
ENTRY(omap_smc2)
stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
mov r6, #0xff
mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder
if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id parameter
(R0) used.
mov r7, #0
mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is Invalidate entire branch
predictor array(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but
this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR is set.
dsb
dmb
smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter
count passed in R3[0] to be the count of the remaining
parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in
omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be
fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to
say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still
works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
functions, extending the existing functions to handle new
requirements is better solution, IMHO.
I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
is different for various SoCs?
Regards,
Tony
Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
Sorry don't have the link available, but I recall seeing some patch
on linux-arm-kernel within past six months that added a generic
smc function.. Or maybe I was dreaming or something.
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 18:51:21 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com [130306 06:13]:
On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com [130301 06:42]:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров
freemangor...@abv.bg wrote:
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The
first major difference is here (code taken from
omap-smc.S)
ENTRY(omap_smc2)
stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
mov r6, #0xff
mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I
wonder if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id
parameter (R0) used.
mov r7, #0
mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is Invalidate entire
branch predictor array(IIUC). NFC why it is needed
here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit
in ACR is set.
dsb
dmb
smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects
parameter count passed in R3[0] to be the count of
the remaining parameters +1, but
omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing
the exact count of the remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be
fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to
say that I don't have BB around to test if the code
still works if I make changes to
omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
functions, extending the existing functions to handle
new requirements is better solution, IMHO.
I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call
numbering is different for various SoCs?
Regards,
Tony
Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?
Sorry don't have the link available, but I recall seeing some
patch on linux-arm-kernel within past six months that added a
generic smc function.. Or maybe I was dreaming or something.
Regards,
Tony
I am not able to find that patch...
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Nishanth Menon [130301 06:42]:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров wrote:
> >
> > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major
> > difference is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
> >
> >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> >> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> >> mov r3, r2
> >> mov r2, r1
> >> mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
> >> mov r6, #0xff
> >> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
> >
> > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug,
> > but anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
> >
> >> mov r7, #0
> >> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> >
> > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch predictor
> > array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51
> > until IBE bit in ACR is set.
> >
> >> dsb
> >> dmb
> >> smc #0
> >
> > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> >
> >> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> >
> >
> > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in
> > R3[0] to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but
> > omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
> > remaining parameters.
> >
> > I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder
> > does it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code
> > still works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> >
> >
>
> Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new functions,
> extending the existing functions to handle new requirements is better
> solution, IMHO.
I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
is different for various SoCs?
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
* Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com [130301 06:42]:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров freemangor...@abv.bg wrote:
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major
difference is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
ENTRY(omap_smc2)
stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
mov r6, #0xff
mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug,
but anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
mov r7, #0
mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is Invalidate entire branch predictor
array(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51
until IBE bit in ACR is set.
dsb
dmb
smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in
R3[0] to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but
omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder
does it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code
still works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new functions,
extending the existing functions to handle new requirements is better
solution, IMHO.
I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
is different for various SoCs?
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:09:12PM +0200, Ивайло Димитров wrote: > Unfortunately it is necessary, on RX-51 PPA/NOLO leaves IBE bit unset. You sure? I think you need to explain this more - the commit message in the original patch is empty/missing... A. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров wrote:
>
> They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major difference
> is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
>
>> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
>> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
>> mov r3, r2
>> mov r2, r1
>> mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
>> mov r6, #0xff
>> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
>
> Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug,
> but anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
>
>> mov r7, #0
>> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
>
> According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch predictor
> array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51
> until IBE bit in ACR is set.
>
>> dsb
>> dmb
>> smc #0
>
> RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
>
>> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
>
>
> The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in
> R3[0] to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but
> omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
> remaining parameters.
>
> I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder
> does it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code
> still works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
>
>
Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new functions,
extending the existing functions to handle new requirements is better
solution, IMHO.
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Unfortunately it is necessary, on RX-51 PPA/NOLO leaves IBE bit unset. > Оригинално писмо >От: Peter De Schrijver >Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround >До: Pali Rohár >Изпратено на: Петък, 2013, Март 1 11:43:14 EET > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:42:28AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov >> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 + >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66 >> +++ >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 + >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34 >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7 >> 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c >> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h >> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S >> > >Is this necessary? I thought the PPA sets this bit? > >Cheers, > >Peter. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:42:28AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 + > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66 > +++ > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 + > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34 > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7 > 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c > create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h > create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S > Is this necessary? I thought the PPA sets this bit? Cheers, Peter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:42:28AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov freemangor...@abv.bg Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com --- arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 + arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66 +++ arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 + arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+) create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S Is this necessary? I thought the PPA sets this bit? Cheers, Peter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Unfortunately it is necessary, on RX-51 PPA/NOLO leaves IBE bit unset. Оригинално писмо От: Peter De Schrijver Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround До: Pali Rohár Изпратено на: Петък, 2013, Март 1 11:43:14 EET On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:42:28AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár --- arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 + arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66 +++ arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 + arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+) create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S Is this necessary? I thought the PPA sets this bit? Cheers, Peter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров freemangor...@abv.bg wrote:
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major difference
is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
ENTRY(omap_smc2)
stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
mov r6, #0xff
mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug,
but anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
mov r7, #0
mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is Invalidate entire branch predictor
array(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51
until IBE bit in ACR is set.
dsb
dmb
smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in
R3[0] to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but
omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder
does it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code
still works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new functions,
extending the existing functions to handle new requirements is better
solution, IMHO.
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:09:12PM +0200, Ивайло Димитров wrote: Unfortunately it is necessary, on RX-51 PPA/NOLO leaves IBE bit unset. You sure? I think you need to explain this more - the commit message in the original patch is empty/missing... A. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major difference
is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> mov r3, r2
> mov r2, r1
> mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
> mov r6, #0xff
> mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug, but
anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
> mov r7, #0
> mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch predictor array"(IIUC).
NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR
is set.
> dsb
> dmb
> smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in R3[0]
to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in
omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does
it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still
works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> Оригинално писмо --------
>От: Nishanth Menon
>Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
>До: Pali Rohár
>Изпратено на: Четвъртък, 2013, Февруари 28 16:40:05 EET
>
>
>On 10:42-20130228, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov
>> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 +
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66
>> +++
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 +
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7
>
>Wondering if we can integrate these into
>arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smc.S
>and
>arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c
>on a quick look, it does seem there are commonalities.
>
>> 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
>> index 0ebbdd50..8eb4fb4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
>> @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ obj-(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) +=
>> board-rx51.o sdram-nokia.o
>> obj-(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-peripherals.o
>> obj-(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-video.o
>> obj-(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-camera.o
>> +obj-(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-smc.o
>> board-rx51-secure.o
>> obj-(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom.o
>> board-zoom-peripherals.o
>> obj-(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-display.o
>> obj-(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-debugboard.o
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
>> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..361dc78
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
>> +/*
>> + * RX51 Secure PPA API.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov
>> + *
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software,you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + */
>> +#include
>> +
>> +#include board-rx51-secure.h
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * rx51_secure_dispatcher: Routine to dispatch secure PPA API calls
>> + * @idx: The PPA API index
>> + * @flag: The flag indicating criticality of operation
>> + * @nargs: Number of valid arguments out of four.
>> + * @arg1, arg2, arg3 args4: Parameters passed to secure API
>> + *
>> + * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
>> + */
>> +u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32
>> arg2,
>> + u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
>> +{
>> + u32 ret;
>> + u32 param[5];
>> +
>> + param[0] = nargs+1;
>> + param[1] = arg1;
>> + param[2] = arg2;
>> + param[3] = arg3;
>> + param[4] = arg4
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On 10:42-20130228, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov
> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 +
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66
> +++
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 +
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7
Wondering if we can integrate these into
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smc.S
and
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c
on a quick look, it does seem there are commonalities.
> 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
> index 0ebbdd50..8eb4fb4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
> @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51.o
> sdram-nokia.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-peripherals.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-video.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-camera.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-smc.o
> board-rx51-secure.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2)+= board-zoom.o
> board-zoom-peripherals.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2)+= board-zoom-display.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2)+= board-zoom-debugboard.o
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..361dc78
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> +/*
> + * RX51 Secure PPA API.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov
> + *
> + *
> + * This program is free software,you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + */
> +#include
> +
> +#include "board-rx51-secure.h"
> +
> +/**
> + * rx51_secure_dispatcher: Routine to dispatch secure PPA API calls
> + * @idx: The PPA API index
> + * @flag: The flag indicating criticality of operation
> + * @nargs: Number of valid arguments out of four.
> + * @arg1, arg2, arg3 args4: Parameters passed to secure API
> + *
> + * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
> + */
> +u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
> +u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
> +{
> + u32 ret;
> + u32 param[5];
> +
> + param[0] = nargs+1;
> + param[1] = arg1;
> + param[2] = arg2;
> + param[3] = arg3;
> + param[4] = arg4;
> +
> + /*
> + * Secure API needs physical address
> + * pointer for the parameters
> + */
> + flush_cache_all();
> + outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
> + ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * rx51_secure_update_aux_cr: Routine to modify the contents of Auxiliary
> Control Register
> + * @set_bits: bits to set in ACR
> + * @clr_bits: bits to clear in ACR
> + *
> + * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
> +*/
> +u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits)
> +{
> + u32 acr;
> +
> + /* Read ACR */
> + asm volatile ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 1" : "=r" (acr));
> + acr &= ~clear_bits;
> + acr |= set_bits;
> +
> + return rx51_secure_dispatcher(RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR,
> +FLAG_START_CRITICAL,
> +1,acr,0,0,0);
> +}
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..61c760b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +/*
> + * board-rx51-secure.h: OMAP Secure infrastructure header.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + */
> +#ifndef OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
> +#define OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
> +
> +/* HAL API error codes */
> +#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_OK 0x00
> +#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_FAIL 0x01
> +
> +/* Secure HAL API flags */
> +#define FLAG_START_CRITICAL 0x4
> +#define FLAG_IRQFIQ_MASK0x3
> +#define FLAG_IRQ_ENABLE 0x2
> +#define FLAG_FIQ_ENABLE 0x1
> +#define NO_FLAG 0x0
> +
> +/* Secure PPA(Primary Protected Application) APIs */
> +#define RX51_PPA_L2_INVAL 40
> +#define RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR 42
> +
> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLER__
> +
>
[PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66 +++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7
5 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
index 0ebbdd50..8eb4fb4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
@@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51.o
sdram-nokia.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-peripherals.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-video.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-camera.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-smc.o board-rx51-secure.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom.o board-zoom-peripherals.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-display.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-debugboard.o
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..361dc78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+/*
+ * RX51 Secure PPA API.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov
+ *
+ *
+ * This program is free software,you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+#include
+
+#include "board-rx51-secure.h"
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_dispatcher: Routine to dispatch secure PPA API calls
+ * @idx: The PPA API index
+ * @flag: The flag indicating criticality of operation
+ * @nargs: Number of valid arguments out of four.
+ * @arg1, arg2, arg3 args4: Parameters passed to secure API
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+ */
+u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
+ u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
+{
+ u32 ret;
+ u32 param[5];
+
+ param[0] = nargs+1;
+ param[1] = arg1;
+ param[2] = arg2;
+ param[3] = arg3;
+ param[4] = arg4;
+
+ /*
+* Secure API needs physical address
+* pointer for the parameters
+*/
+ flush_cache_all();
+ outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
+ ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_update_aux_cr: Routine to modify the contents of Auxiliary
Control Register
+ * @set_bits: bits to set in ACR
+ * @clr_bits: bits to clear in ACR
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+*/
+u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits)
+{
+ u32 acr;
+
+ /* Read ACR */
+ asm volatile ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 1" : "=r" (acr));
+ acr &= ~clear_bits;
+ acr |= set_bits;
+
+ return rx51_secure_dispatcher(RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR,
+ FLAG_START_CRITICAL,
+ 1,acr,0,0,0);
+}
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
new file mode 100644
index 000..61c760b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+/*
+ * board-rx51-secure.h: OMAP Secure infrastructure header.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+#ifndef OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
+#define OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
+
+/* HAL API error codes */
+#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_OK 0x00
+#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_FAIL 0x01
+
+/* Secure HAL API flags */
+#define FLAG_START_CRITICAL 0x4
+#define FLAG_IRQFIQ_MASK0x3
+#define FLAG_IRQ_ENABLE 0x2
+#define FLAG_FIQ_ENABLE 0x1
+#define NO_FLAG 0x0
+
+/* Secure PPA(Primary Protected Application) APIs */
+#define RX51_PPA_L2_INVAL 40
+#define RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR 42
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLER__
+
+extern u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs,
+u32 arg1, u32 arg2, u32 arg3, u32 arg4);
+extern u32 rx51_ppa_smc(u32 id, u32 flag, u32 pargs);
+
+extern u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits);
+#endif /* __ASSEMBLER__ */
+#endif /* OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
new file mode 100644
index 000..70e2eb7
--- /dev/null
+++
[PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov freemangor...@abv.bg
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66 +++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7
5 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
index 0ebbdd50..8eb4fb4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
@@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51.o
sdram-nokia.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-peripherals.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-video.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-camera.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-smc.o board-rx51-secure.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom.o board-zoom-peripherals.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-display.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-debugboard.o
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..361dc78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+/*
+ * RX51 Secure PPA API.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov freemangor...@abv.bg
+ *
+ *
+ * This program is free software,you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+#include asm/cacheflush.h
+
+#include board-rx51-secure.h
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_dispatcher: Routine to dispatch secure PPA API calls
+ * @idx: The PPA API index
+ * @flag: The flag indicating criticality of operation
+ * @nargs: Number of valid arguments out of four.
+ * @arg1, arg2, arg3 args4: Parameters passed to secure API
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+ */
+u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
+ u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
+{
+ u32 ret;
+ u32 param[5];
+
+ param[0] = nargs+1;
+ param[1] = arg1;
+ param[2] = arg2;
+ param[3] = arg3;
+ param[4] = arg4;
+
+ /*
+* Secure API needs physical address
+* pointer for the parameters
+*/
+ flush_cache_all();
+ outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
+ ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_update_aux_cr: Routine to modify the contents of Auxiliary
Control Register
+ * @set_bits: bits to set in ACR
+ * @clr_bits: bits to clear in ACR
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+*/
+u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits)
+{
+ u32 acr;
+
+ /* Read ACR */
+ asm volatile (mrc p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 1 : =r (acr));
+ acr = ~clear_bits;
+ acr |= set_bits;
+
+ return rx51_secure_dispatcher(RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR,
+ FLAG_START_CRITICAL,
+ 1,acr,0,0,0);
+}
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
new file mode 100644
index 000..61c760b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+/*
+ * board-rx51-secure.h: OMAP Secure infrastructure header.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov freemangor...@abv.bg
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+#ifndef OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
+#define OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
+
+/* HAL API error codes */
+#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_OK 0x00
+#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_FAIL 0x01
+
+/* Secure HAL API flags */
+#define FLAG_START_CRITICAL 0x4
+#define FLAG_IRQFIQ_MASK0x3
+#define FLAG_IRQ_ENABLE 0x2
+#define FLAG_FIQ_ENABLE 0x1
+#define NO_FLAG 0x0
+
+/* Secure PPA(Primary Protected Application) APIs */
+#define RX51_PPA_L2_INVAL 40
+#define RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR 42
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLER__
+
+extern u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs,
+u32 arg1, u32 arg2, u32 arg3, u32 arg4);
+extern u32 rx51_ppa_smc(u32 id, u32 flag, u32 pargs);
+
+extern u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits);
+#endif /* __ASSEMBLER__ */
+#endif /* OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
On 10:42-20130228, Pali Rohár wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov freemangor...@abv.bg
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66
+++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7
Wondering if we can integrate these into
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smc.S
and
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c
on a quick look, it does seem there are commonalities.
5 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
index 0ebbdd50..8eb4fb4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
@@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51.o
sdram-nokia.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-peripherals.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-video.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-camera.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51)+= board-rx51-smc.o
board-rx51-secure.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2)+= board-zoom.o
board-zoom-peripherals.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2)+= board-zoom-display.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2)+= board-zoom-debugboard.o
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..361dc78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+/*
+ * RX51 Secure PPA API.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov freemangor...@abv.bg
+ *
+ *
+ * This program is free software,you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+#include asm/cacheflush.h
+
+#include board-rx51-secure.h
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_dispatcher: Routine to dispatch secure PPA API calls
+ * @idx: The PPA API index
+ * @flag: The flag indicating criticality of operation
+ * @nargs: Number of valid arguments out of four.
+ * @arg1, arg2, arg3 args4: Parameters passed to secure API
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+ */
+u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
+u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
+{
+ u32 ret;
+ u32 param[5];
+
+ param[0] = nargs+1;
+ param[1] = arg1;
+ param[2] = arg2;
+ param[3] = arg3;
+ param[4] = arg4;
+
+ /*
+ * Secure API needs physical address
+ * pointer for the parameters
+ */
+ flush_cache_all();
+ outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
+ ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_update_aux_cr: Routine to modify the contents of Auxiliary
Control Register
+ * @set_bits: bits to set in ACR
+ * @clr_bits: bits to clear in ACR
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+*/
+u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits)
+{
+ u32 acr;
+
+ /* Read ACR */
+ asm volatile (mrc p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 1 : =r (acr));
+ acr = ~clear_bits;
+ acr |= set_bits;
+
+ return rx51_secure_dispatcher(RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR,
+FLAG_START_CRITICAL,
+1,acr,0,0,0);
+}
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
new file mode 100644
index 000..61c760b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+/*
+ * board-rx51-secure.h: OMAP Secure infrastructure header.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov freemangor...@abv.bg
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+#ifndef OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
+#define OMAP_RX51_SECURE_H
+
+/* HAL API error codes */
+#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_OK 0x00
+#define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_FAIL 0x01
+
+/* Secure HAL API flags */
+#define FLAG_START_CRITICAL 0x4
+#define FLAG_IRQFIQ_MASK0x3
+#define FLAG_IRQ_ENABLE 0x2
+#define FLAG_FIQ_ENABLE 0x1
+#define NO_FLAG 0x0
+
+/* Secure PPA(Primary Protected Application) APIs */
+#define RX51_PPA_L2_INVAL 40
+#define RX51_PPA_WRITE_ACR 42
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLER__
+
+extern u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag,
Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major difference
is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
ENTRY(omap_smc2)
stmfd sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, #0x0@ Process ID
mov r6, #0xff
mov r12, #0x00 @ Secure Service ID
Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug, but
anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
mov r7, #0
mcr p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
According to ARM TRM, this is Invalidate entire branch predictor array(IIUC).
NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR
is set.
dsb
dmb
smc #0
RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
ldmfd sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in R3[0]
to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in
omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the remaining parameters.
I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does
it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still
works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
Оригинално писмо
От: Nishanth Menon
Относно: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
До: Pali Rohár
Изпратено на: Четвъртък, 2013, Февруари 28 16:40:05 EET
On 10:42-20130228, Pali Rohár wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile|1 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c | 66
+++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h | 36 +
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S| 34
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c|7
Wondering if we can integrate these into
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smc.S
and
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c
on a quick look, it does seem there are commonalities.
5 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-smc.S
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
index 0ebbdd50..8eb4fb4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
@@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) +=
board-rx51.o sdram-nokia.o
obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-peripherals.o
obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-video.o
obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-camera.o
+obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-smc.o
board-rx51-secure.o
obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom.o
board-zoom-peripherals.o
obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-display.o
obj-#36;(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2) += board-zoom-debugboard.o
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..361dc78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-secure.c
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+/*
+ * RX51 Secure PPA API.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 Ivaylo Dimitrov
+ *
+ *
+ * This program is free software,you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+#include
+
+#include quot;board-rx51-secure.hquot;
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_dispatcher: Routine to dispatch secure PPA API calls
+ * @idx: The PPA API index
+ * @flag: The flag indicating criticality of operation
+ * @nargs: Number of valid arguments out of four.
+ * @arg1, arg2, arg3 args4: Parameters passed to secure API
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+ */
+u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 flag, u32 nargs, u32 arg1, u32
arg2,
+ u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
+{
+ u32 ret;
+ u32 param[5];
+
+ param[0] = nargs+1;
+ param[1] = arg1;
+ param[2] = arg2;
+ param[3] = arg3;
+ param[4] = arg4;
+
+ /*
+* Secure API needs physical address
+* pointer for the parameters
+*/
+ flush_cache_all();
+ outer_clean_range(__pa(param), __pa(param + 5));
+ ret = rx51_ppa_smc(idx, flag, __pa(param));
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * rx51_secure_update_aux_cr: Routine to modify the contents of Auxiliary
Control Register
+ * @set_bits: bits to set in ACR
+ * @clr_bits: bits to clear in ACR
+ *
+ * Return the non-zero error value on failure.
+*/
+u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits)
+{
+ u32 acr;
+
+ /* Read ACR */
+ asm volatile (quot;mrc p15, 0
