From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" Subject: Re: [UPDATED] [PATCH 3/5] arm-cci: Get rid of secure transactions for PMU driver Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:52:54 +0000 Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <550B09A1.4020801@arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sudeep Holla , Mark Rutland Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Nicolas Pitre , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Kukjin Kim , Abhilash Kesavan , Arnd Bergmann , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Liviu Dudau , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Olof Johansson , Pawel Moll , Punit Agrawal , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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(). Cheers Suzuki