From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:58:06 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround
In-Reply-To: <CAGo_u6omQdSzpfthHNAU1UvgSvkgq3ZC6g1Ha9oi0nc9QJ71nA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <517283541.62064.1362124023621.JavaMail.apache@mail81.abv.bg>
 <CAGo_u6omQdSzpfthHNAU1UvgSvkgq3ZC6g1Ha9oi0nc9QJ71nA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130304185806.GS11806@atomide.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

* Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [130301 06:42]:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, ?????? ???????? <freemangordon@abv.bg> wrote:
> >
> > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The first major difference is here (code taken from omap-smc.S)
> >
> >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> >>          stmfd   sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> >>          mov     r3, r2
> >>          mov     r2, r1
> >>          mov     r1, #0x0        @ Process ID
> >>          mov     r6, #0xff
> >>          mov     r12, #0x00      @ Secure Service ID
> >
> > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id parameter (R0) used.
> >
> >>          mov     r7, #0
> >>          mcr     p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> >
> > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch predictor array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR is set.
> >
> >>          dsb
> >>          dmb
> >>          smc     #0
> >
> > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> >
> >>          ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> >
> >
> > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter count passed in R3[0] to be the count of the remaining parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the remaining parameters.
> >
> > I guess all of the above problems can be fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> >
> >
> 
> Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new functions,
> extending the existing functions to handle new requirements is better
> solution, IMHO.

I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
is different for various SoCs?

Regards,

Tony