[PATCH v1 1/5] ARM: cache-l2x0: add 'smc' identifier

[linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:19:27PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote:
> 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);
> 
> You can do this operation (write to DEBUG_CTRL) only if SMC is implemented.

Err... no.  You can do it if you're running in secure mode without a
secure monitor, because the security stuff doesn't get in the way.

What other platforms do is up to them, and up to *how* the secure monitor
is implemented, not *if*.

> > }
> > 
> > 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.

So this is going to be difficult because you only ever answer half an
email?  So, I repeat the question above.