From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DFDC43603 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 356AF206D3 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="o/YEKFro" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 356AF206D3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=atomide.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To:From :Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: List-Owner; bh=oO8N1Y9EQXsY3lR40X2yHOwO8QdV4j3v3jO3OlCpDTk=; b=o/YEKFroq/kcVV U27yDP0/JfRbdeqvBaQuS2FQ4a1H7ozna0SS66OkxB7enggABUDGICYWOLGz8NOhxMw/v0L/i0GFS e6IKAmPpicH6jkfT/3sj8u2d46etgfiKwftMNsZDGmIohT+x40b+nr9aCEMuv+V+hCIKO0U4NwSuZ wR6sJjMV1BezjXzDRYUHu81rkRxIIAGAxK19cgWIxeCjyb7KpUmh25l/KtErD3dlo3eoSKxknYHNU KgC5JMHlg2HF7oUzYvekIyK8XLkTrheHM8tDg/at14xiAjX85kVw+0EVe+RP54IEmPYYtNzqXxMhg ayvo12cc/OczAGOlypuw==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ieNS3-0002kf-LD; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 18:08:07 +0000 Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ieNS1-0002jE-4N for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 18:08:06 +0000 Received: from atomide.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by muru.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75B8480CD; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:08:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 10:07:52 -0800 From: Tony Lindgren To: Catalin Marinas , Russell King , Will Deacon Subject: arm_smccc_smc as generic smc interface? Message-ID: <20191209180752.GJ35479@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191209_100805_208431_4EF9E716 X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE ( 7.30 ) X-CRM114-Notice: Please train this message. X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Sumit Garg , Arnd Bergmann , Volodymyr Babchuk , Marc Zyngier , "Andrew F. Davis" , Olof Johansson , Andy Gross , Colin Ian King , Jens Wiklander , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi all, So it seems that we could make arm_smccc_smc() into a generic kernel smc interface instead of being limited to optee usage. That is assuming optee and legacy calls are never be enabled the same time on a booted system :) I know arm_smccc_smc() currently assumes a specific register usage for the optee case, but AFAIK those limitations do not exist for non-optee cases. Does anybody see some other issues with making arm_smccc_smc() into a generic smc call interface? If there are some more optee specific considerations with making arm_smccc_smc() into a generic interface, we could just set up something generic that also arm_smccc_smc() can then call. The use case I'm familiar with are the old TI smc calls that need register specific quirks enabled only for the non-optee case, while with optee enabled, quirks are not needed. There are probably similar issues with other SoCs too. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel