From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:55:55 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm/mm: L2CC shared mutex with ARM TZ In-Reply-To: <0154077FE026E54BB093CA7EB3FD1AE32DB6A63266@SAFEX1MAIL3.st.com> References: <0154077FE026E54BB093CA7EB3FD1AE32B57AF1B59@SAFEX1MAIL3.st.com> <20121113171745.GA6370@linaro.org> <0154077FE026E54BB093CA7EB3FD1AE32DB61E4CC7@SAFEX1MAIL3.st.com> <20121114172216.GG16215@arm.com> <0154077FE026E54BB093CA7EB3FD1AE32DB6A63266@SAFEX1MAIL3.st.com> Message-ID: <20121115135555.GC25985@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:46:29PM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE ST wrote: > I think we will internally use our hack in l2x0 spin locking to > prevent collision, based on old arch_spinlock support. Or just handle the collision in the secure code and make sure you don't start background operations. If you don't use background operations, you don't need any locking. -- Catalin