On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:10:11PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> The A80 stores some magic flags in a portion of the secure SRAM. The
>> BROM jumps directly to the software entry point set by the SMP code
>> if the flags are set. This is required for CPU0 hotplugging.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <w...@csie.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
>> index 1507bd2a88f0..0695215634d4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun9i-a80.dtsi
>> @@ -366,6 +366,26 @@
>> */
>> ranges = <0 0 0 0x20000000>;
>>
>> + sram_b: sram@00020000 {
>> + /* 256 KiB secure SRAM at 0x20000 */
>> + compatible = "mmio-sram";
>> + reg = <0x00020000 0x40000>;
>> +
>
> We should probably add a property to that SRAM to tell the driver not
> to access it if we're not booted in secure mode.
(CC-ing Heiko...)
That kind of puts architecture (ARM) dependent code into a platform
driver. Furthermore, AFAIK there isn't a safe way to check if we're
in secure mode or not. Checking SCR raises an undefined instruction
exception in non-secure mode. Can the kernel handle that? I really
don't understand this bit well.
> Otherwise, bad things might happen.
The kernel (or rather the bootloader) boots in secure mode by default,
and we don't have any bootloader support to boot into non-secure mode
ATM. Couldn't we have the bootloader mark the SRAM as disabled when
booting into non-secure when we add that support?
ChenYu
--
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/
