Re: [BOOTWRAPPER][PATCH] Make GICv3.1 extended ranges available to non-secure

Marc Zyngier
2019-07-23T14:28:18Z

On 23/07/2019 15:10, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> If we have a GICv3.1-capable system, configure the EPPI/ESPI ranges
>> to be accessible from the non-secure world.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> ---
>> gic-v3.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gic-v3.c b/gic-v3.c
>> index 476f703..4b733ba 100644
>> --- a/gic-v3.c
>> +++ b/gic-v3.c
>> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
>> #define GICD_TYPER 0x4
>> #define GICD_IGROUP0 0x80
>> #define GICD_IGRPMOD0 0xd00
>> +#define GICD_IGROUPR0E 0x1000
>> +#define GICD_IGRPMODR0E 0x3400
>>
>> #define GICD_CTLR_EnableGrp0 (1 << 0)
>> #define GICD_CTLR_EnableGrp1ns (1 << 1)
>> @@ -57,6 +59,7 @@ void gic_secure_init_primary(void)
>> * ChildrenAsleep to be 0.
>> */
>> uint32_t waker = raw_readl(gicr_ptr + GICR_WAKER);
>> + uint32_t regs;
>> waker &= ~GICR_WAKER_ProcessorSleep;
>> raw_writel(waker, gicr_ptr + GICR_WAKER);
>> dsb(st);
>> @@ -72,8 +75,11 @@ void gic_secure_init_primary(void)
>> typer = raw_readl(gicr_ptr + GICR_TYPER);
>>
>> gicr_ptr += 0x10000; /* Go to SGI_Base */
>> - raw_writel(~0x0, gicr_ptr + GICR_IGROUP0);
>> - raw_writel(0x0, gicr_ptr + GICR_IGRPMOD0);
>> + regs = 1 + ((typer >> 27) & 0x1f);
>
> IIUC that's GICR_TYPER.PPInum, right?

Indeed.

>
>> + for (i = 0; i < regs; i++) {
>> + raw_writel(~0x0, gicr_ptr + GICR_IGROUP0 + i * 4);
>> + raw_writel(0x0, gicr_ptr + GICR_IGRPMOD0 + i * 4);
>> + }
>>
>> /* Next redist */
>> gicr_ptr += 0x10000;
>> @@ -87,6 +93,10 @@ void gic_secure_init_primary(void)
>> raw_writel(~0x0, gicd_base + GICD_IGROUP0 + i * 4);
>> raw_writel(0x0, gicd_base + GICD_IGRPMOD0 + i * 4);
>> }
>> + for (i = 0; i < ((typer >> 27) & GICD_TYPER_ITLineNumber); i++) {
>
> IIUC this is ESPI_range_field, so using the GICD_TYPER_ITLineNumber
> mnemonic is a bit misleading.
>
> Given the verbose regfield names, _SHIFT and _MASK definitions will make
> this illegible, so could we please add extactors:
>
> #define GICR_TYPER_PPInum(r) (((r) >> 27) & 0x1f)
> #define GICD_TYPER_ESPI_range(r) (((r) >> 27) & 0x1f)
>
> ... and use those in the for loops?
>
> With that, this looks good to me. If you respin, I'm happy to pick this
> up. :)

Sure, I'll do that shortly.

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...