On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:13:58AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2015-02-19 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 09:28 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:24AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 09:25:56AM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-19 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 09:28 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:24AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >> This is getting invasive:
> >>
>
On 2015-02-19 11:34, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:09:57AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2015-02-16 16:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-16 15:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:21PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wr
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:09:57AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 16:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2015-02-16 15:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:21PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:51:37PM
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:25:56AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-19 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 09:28 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:24AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >> This is getting invasive:
> >>
>
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-19 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 09:28 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:24AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >> This is getting invasive:
> >>
> >> If I
On 2015-02-19 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 09:28 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:24AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>> This is getting invasive:
>>
>> If I add carveouts via adjusting memory banks, I need to account for the
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 09:28 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:24AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > >> This is getting invasive:
> > > >>
> > > >> If I add carveouts via adjusting memory banks, I need to account for
> > > >> the
> > > >> case that an exist
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:24AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > >> This is getting invasive:
> > >>
> > >> If I add carveouts via adjusting memory banks, I need to account for the
> > >> case that an existing bank is split into two halves, creating additional
> > >> banks this way. But
[...]
> >> This is getting invasive:
> >>
> >> If I add carveouts via adjusting memory banks, I need to account for the
> >> case that an existing bank is split into two halves, creating additional
> >> banks this way. But then current fdt_fixup_memory_banks will no longer
> >> work due to its lim
On 2015-02-17 11:46, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 08:09:57AM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2015-02-16 16:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-16 15:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:21PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrot
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 08:09:57AM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 16:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2015-02-16 15:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:21PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:51:37PM
On 2015-02-16 16:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 15:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:21PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:51:37PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 14:42, Mark Rutland wrot
On 2015-02-16 15:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:21PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:51:37PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2015-02-16 14:42, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:54:43PM +
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:21PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:51:37PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-16 14:42, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:54:43PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Ian Cam
On 2015-02-16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:51:37PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2015-02-16 14:42, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:54:43PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
From: Ian Campbell
In this case the secure code lives in RAM, and hence
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:51:37PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 14:42, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:54:43PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> From: Ian Campbell
> >>
> >> In this case the secure code lives in RAM, and hence needs to be reserved,
> >> but
> >> it has
On 2015-02-16 14:42, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:54:43PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Ian Campbell
>>
>> In this case the secure code lives in RAM, and hence needs to be reserved,
>> but
>> it has been relocated, so the reservation of __secure_start does not apply.
>>
>>
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:54:43PM +, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Ian Campbell
>
> In this case the secure code lives in RAM, and hence needs to be reserved, but
> it has been relocated, so the reservation of __secure_start does not apply.
>
> Add support for setting CONFIG_ARMV7_SECURE_RESERV
From: Ian Campbell
In this case the secure code lives in RAM, and hence needs to be reserved, but
it has been relocated, so the reservation of __secure_start does not apply.
Add support for setting CONFIG_ARMV7_SECURE_RESERVE_SIZE to reserve such a
region.
This will be used in a subsequent patc
20 matches
Mail list logo
