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/
