From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] iommu/arm-smmu: Support buggy implemenations where all config accesses are secure Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20130927130527.GH9520@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1380234982-1677-1-git-send-email-andreas.herrmann@calxeda.com> <1380234982-1677-7-git-send-email-andreas.herrmann@calxeda.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1380234982-1677-7-git-send-email-andreas.herrmann-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Andreas Herrmann Cc: "iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org" , Rob Herring , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > In such a case we have to use secure aliases of some non-secure > registers. > > This behaviour is controlled via a flag in smmu->bugs. It is set > based on DT information when probing an SMMU device. :( I guess my main comment is just some understanding on how things are wired. It's *just* the configuration access that is secure, right? Device transactions are non-secure, so the existing TLB invalidation code will work correctly? Will