On 07/30/2013 12:02 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:54:16AM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
index 1b6e0ac..7b0619e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
#include <asm/bootm.h>
#include <linux/compiler.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC
+#include <asm/armv7.h>
+#endif
+
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
static struct tag *params;
@@ -186,6 +190,29 @@ static void setup_end_tag(bd_t *bd)
__weak void setup_board_tags(struct tag **in_params) {}
+static void do_nonsec_virt_switch(void)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = armv7_switch_nonsec();
+ switch (ret) {
+ case NONSEC_VIRT_SUCCESS:
+ debug("entered non-secure state\n");
+ break;
+ case NONSEC_ERR_NO_SEC_EXT:
+ printf("nonsec: Security extensions not implemented.\n");
+ break;
+ case NONSEC_ERR_NO_GIC_ADDRESS:
+ printf("nonsec: could not determine GIC address.\n");
+ break;
+ case NONSEC_ERR_GIC_ADDRESS_ABOVE_4GB:
+ printf("nonsec: PERIPHBASE is above 4 GB, no access.\n");
+ break;
+ }
+#endif
+}
I still don't get why you just don't make armv7_switch_nonsec a void and
print the error when they occur... ???
My apologies for not elaborating on these comments I didn't incorporate:
So, I don't like the idea of marrying a low-level routine with high
level output. I don't want to constraint the usage of the routine by
requiring an output channel. Also some parts may not be fatal for all
users - someone could just try to switch and then behave differently if
that failed - without bothering the user.
May seem a bit over-engineered, but I like it better this way ;-)
If that is a show-stopper for you, I can change it, of course.
Regards,
Andre.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
