From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F4CC43603 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E860C206EC for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="fCf3+rQC" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728179AbfLQNOT (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:14:19 -0500 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:46674 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727202AbfLQNOS (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:14:18 -0500 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xBHDECDD035600; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:14:12 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1576588452; bh=vV44X6DKUE88PgxfEZq2hgsou+dqVy3bJZRsCUIl+xU=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=fCf3+rQCCiVfi/8tZAE1VfSWUiJHg1AjCXwo39J+xwacAHTOi3fjR6H5ubvgXNzb8 kpsvJUYYftIyjrO8AfCobR9OsW9MKGpetMIgUgFBcAqvauPrL+kl5z24JwDjCTn8p5 xVLKCbfN8uBC/CV2NHECMpv/VOvcw4jle6WbCHCk= Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (dlee111.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.22]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBHDECsk009710 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:14:12 -0600 Received: from DLEE113.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.24) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:14:11 -0600 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DLEE113.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:14:12 -0600 Received: from [10.250.79.55] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xBHDEBUU010091; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:14:11 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: Use ARM SMC Calling Convention when OP-TEE is available To: Tony Lindgren CC: Mark Rutland , , References: <20191119190721.GO35479@atomide.com> <7fa11037-8d33-2274-c8cc-80e9630b38b0@ti.com> <20191119192029.GP35479@atomide.com> <0ad31b32-712e-5bef-5645-0336dfec99cc@ti.com> <20191119194425.GQ35479@atomide.com> <1ff8ae4b-5de3-4fdf-7318-d33398dc7fc8@ti.com> <20191216210407.GR35479@atomide.com> <9adad579-98b4-f228-caf3-f4996dcaecda@ti.com> <20191216224105.GS35479@atomide.com> From: "Andrew F. Davis" Message-ID: <35e4b682-0d2f-23b1-6df4-428c6bcb4d59@ti.com> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:14:11 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191216224105.GS35479@atomide.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/16/19 5:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Andrew F. Davis [191216 22:34]: >> On 12/16/19 4:04 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Andrew F. Davis [191216 20:57]: >>>> Looks like the TI quirk idea is not moving forward, even the QCOM quirk >>>> looks like it may get kicked out. arm_smccc_smc() will remain only for >>>> SMCCC compliant calls, but it looks like a generic arm_smc() wouldn't be >>>> too opposed upstream. >>> >>> Yes so it seems. >>> >>>> Either way this patch would still be valid as when OP-TEE is present >>>> then arm_smccc_smc() will be the right call to make, how we handle the >>>> legacy calls can be sorted out later if a generic SMC call is implemented. >>> >>> Please see my comment regarding this patch earlier in this thread >>> pasted below for convenience: >>> >>> * Tony Lindgren [191119 16:22]: >>>> In any case, you should do the necessary checks for HAVE_ARM_SMCCC >>>> only once during init. I'm not sure how much checking for >>>> "/firmware/optee" helps here, sounds like we have a broken system >>>> if the firmware is not there while the arm_smccc_smc() should >>>> still work just fine :) >>> >>> So only check once during init. And during init, you should probably >>> also check that arm_smccc_smc() actually infd optee if >>> "/firmware/optee" is set, and only then set set the right function >>> pointer or some flag. >>> >> >> Okay, I'll check only once and make sure the node is "okay". > > Yes we don't want to parse the dts over and over. > >> I'll do the check during the first call to an SMC caller, I wouldn't >> want to pollute the OMAP generic init code for something that is only >> called on HS platforms, plus these SMC calls are rare (only 3 calls >> during boot of AM57x for instance) so performance is not critical, so I >> don't want to do anything fancy like code patching :), I'll just use a flag. > > Please just add omap_early_initcall() to omap-secure.c while at it > to deal with this. > omap_early_initcall()s are not called until after all the SMC calls have already happened. Andrew > Regards, > > Tony >