From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: srinidhi.kasagar@stericsson.com (Srinidhi Kasagar) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:08:53 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v1 1/5] ARM: cache-l2x0: add 'smc' identifier In-Reply-To: <20130129113325.GG2637@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20130129101328.GA11878@bnru10> <20130129113325.GG2637@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20130129113853.GA22145@bnru10> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:33:25 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:43:31PM +0530, srinidhi kasagar wrote: > > Add 'smc' (Secure Monitor Call) identifier to differentiates > > the platforms which implements this. > > This patch makes no sense. > > So, if setting 'smc' in the DT description is supposed to mean that > the platform has a secure monitor then... > > > + is_smc = of_property_read_bool(np, "smc"); > > + > > + if (is_smc) { > > + /* set the debug interface */ > > + outer_cache.set_debug = pl310_set_debug; > > + } > > Now, let's look at what pl310_set_debug() does: > > static void pl310_set_debug(unsigned long val) > { > writel_relaxed(val, l2x0_base + L2X0_DEBUG_CTRL); > } > > Can you explain where the secure monitor call is there please, because > I can't see one. In fact, this is the function used when there _isn't_ > a secure monitor. So this patch just seems totally wrong to me. Today, one and only platform is omap. Please check below snapshot: --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ reg = <0x48242000 0x1000>; cache-unified; cache-level = <2>; + smc; }; [...] --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static int __init omap_l2_cache_init(void) if (of_have_populated_dt()) l2x0_of_init(aux_ctrl, L2X0_AUX_CTRL_MASK); else - l2x0_init(l2cache_base, aux_ctrl, L2X0_AUX_CTRL_MASK); + l2x0_init(l2cache_base, aux_ctrl, L2X0_AUX_CTRL_MASK, true); regards/srinidhi