On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:54:46AM +0200, Fabian Aggeler wrote:
> arm_is_secure() function allows to determine CPU security state
> if the CPU implements Security Extensions/EL3.
> arm_is_secure_below_el3() returns true if CPU is in secure state
> below EL3.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov
> Si
I suggested to combine arm_is_secure() and arm_is_secure_below_el3().
Since the code follows the v8 pseudo code my suggestion is really not a
good idea. So I apologize twice for wasting your time :)
// Sergey
12.06.2014 22:35, Greg Bellows wrote:
> To make sure I understand, you are proposing tha
To make sure I understand, you are proposing that we simply use the return
from arm_current_pl of 3 to indicate isSecure?
Fabian's code closely follows the v8 spec pseudo code. I believe the case
that would be omitted if we let a return of 3 mean "secure" is the case
where we are in EL0/1 with SC
Hi Greg,
I'm sorry, I wasn't thoughtful enough and missed that.
I would just suggest to combine that functions since they have a common
part, i.e.:
if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_EL3)) {
...
What do you think?
// Sergey
12.06.2014 20:26, Greg Bellows пишет:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> I thi
Hi Sergey,
I think I am missing your point. In patch 6 arm_current_pl calls
arm_is_secure. Can you elaborate?
Greg
On 11 June 2014 07:17, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 11.06.2014 03:54, Fabian Aggeler wrote:
> > arm_is_secure() function allows to determine CPU security state
> > if the CPU imp
On 11.06.2014 03:54, Fabian Aggeler wrote:
> arm_is_secure() function allows to determine CPU security state
> if the CPU implements Security Extensions/EL3.
> arm_is_secure_below_el3() returns true if CPU is in secure state
> below EL3.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ag
arm_is_secure() function allows to determine CPU security state
if the CPU implements Security Extensions/EL3.
arm_is_secure_below_el3() returns true if CPU is in secure state
below EL3.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov
Signed-off-by: Fabian Aggeler
---
target-arm/cpu.h | 38 ++
