Am 2015-03-12 um 13:28 schrieb Tom Rini: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 08:34:34AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Am 2015-03-11 um 16:11 schrieb Tom Rini: >>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 08:00:11AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>>> This is already invoked a few cycles later in monitor mode by >>>> _secure_monitor. Drop it here, it serves no purpose. >>> >>> For clarity, because of the vector tables? >> >> Sorry, didn't get the question yet. Are you asking why it was added >> initially (that would be a question for Marc) or why it serves no >> purpose now? > > You're saying we can drop the call to that function from where it was > because it's called a few cycles later. In mainline we would only (as > far as I can see) call the function because the CPU went to the vector > table and called it that way. > > Or rather, I'm unclear as to how the function would be called a few > cycles later, can you please expand the commit message to make it > clearer? Thanks!
Yeah, the call chain continues like this: _sunxi_cpu_entry calls _do_nonsec_entry which which triggers via smc #0 _secure_monitor, and there we have the second invocation. There is no alternative path. Better? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
