From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:54:09 +0000
Subject: [UPDATED] [PATCH 3/5] arm-cci: Get rid of secure transactions
 for PMU driver
In-Reply-To: <550B0CF6.8070205@arm.com>
References: <1426000735-14375-4-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <1426585901-19137-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20150319173252.GC10153@leverpostej> <550B09A1.4020801@arm.com>
 <550B0CF6.8070205@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20150319175409.GE10153@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:52:54PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 19/03/15 17:38, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 19/03/15 17:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> One more thing:
> >>
> >>> @@ -883,7 +894,11 @@ static inline const struct cci_pmu_model *get_cci_model(struct platform_device *
> >>>    							pdev->dev.of_node);
> >>>    	if (!match)
> >>>    		return NULL;
> >>> +	if (match->data)
> >>> +		return match->data;
> >>>
> >>> +	dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "DEPRECATED compatible property,"
> >>> +			 "requires secure access to CCI registers");
> >>>    	return probe_cci_model(pdev);
> >>>    }
> >>
> >> Before the probe, could we please have:
> >>
> >> 	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM))
> >> 		return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> On arm64 we require a model-specific string, and we shouldn't go
> >> touching secure-only registers.
> >>
> >
> > IIUC platform_has_secure_cci_access always return false for ARM64
> > preventing any secure access. No ?
> >
> Yes, you are right. The check has been abstracted away with the 
> platform_has_secure_cci_access().

Ah, that's fine then.

Sorry for the noise!

Mark.