From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] ARM: cache-l2x0: add 'smc' identifier Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:22:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20130129122255.GI2637@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20130129101328.GA11878@bnru10> <20130129113325.GG2637@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130129114926.GA14624@bnru10> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130129114926.GA14624@bnru10> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Srinidhi Kasagar Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "avorontsov@mvista.com" , "gregory.clement@free-electrons.com" , "kgene.kim@samsung.com" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "shawn.guo@linaro.org" , "rubini@unipv.it" , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "tony@atomide.com" , "horms@verge.net.au" , "magnus.damm@gmail.com" , "viresh.linux@gmail.com" , Shiraz HASHIM List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:19:27PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:33:25 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:43:31PM +0530, srinidhi kasagar wrote: > > > Add 'smc' (Secure Monitor Call) identifier to differentiates > > > the platforms which implements this. > > > > This patch makes no sense. > > > > So, if setting 'smc' in the DT description is supposed to mean that > > the platform has a secure monitor then... > > > > > + is_smc = of_property_read_bool(np, "smc"); > > > + > > > + if (is_smc) { > > > + /* set the debug interface */ > > > + outer_cache.set_debug = pl310_set_debug; > > > + } > > > > Now, let's look at what pl310_set_debug() does: > > > > static void pl310_set_debug(unsigned long val) > > { > > writel_relaxed(val, l2x0_base + L2X0_DEBUG_CTRL); > > You can do this operation (write to DEBUG_CTRL) only if SMC is implemented. Err... no. You can do it if you're running in secure mode without a secure monitor, because the security stuff doesn't get in the way. What other platforms do is up to them, and up to *how* the secure monitor is implemented, not *if*. > > } > > > > Can you explain where the secure monitor call is there please, because > > I can't see one. In fact, this is the function used when there _isn't_ > > a secure monitor. So this patch just seems totally wrong to me. So this is going to be difficult because you only ever answer half an email? So, I repeat the question above.