From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Subject: Re: n900 in next-20170901
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:37:34 -0800
Message-ID: <20171110153734.GP28152@atomide.com>
References: <20171109000801.GA23982@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
 <20171109001113.GZ28152@atomide.com>
 <20171109003639.GB23982@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
 <20171109035031.GA24383@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
 <20171109150854.GC28152@atomide.com>
 <20171110001315.GA29669@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
 <20171110032610.GJ28152@atomide.com>
 <20171110061917.GK28152@atomide.com>
 <20171110062340.GL28152@atomide.com>
 <20171110064623.GA32442@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171110064623.GA32442@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, pali.rohar@gmail.com, sre@kernel.org, kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, khilman@kernel.org, aaro.koskinen@iki.fi, ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com, patrikbachan@gmail.com, serge@hallyn.com, abcloriens@gmail.com, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org

* Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> [171110 06:43]:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:23:40PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [171109 22:19]:
> > > * Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [171110 03:28]:
> > > > Then I'll follow up on cleaning up save_secure_ram_context later.
> > > 
> > > Here's a better version, the static mapping did not get used.. It
> > > just moved the area so it happened to work. It needs to be set
> > > up as MT_MEMORY_RWX_NONCACHED instead.
> > 
> 
> I see a better version now. Hmm... I guess that it also has the
> problem that I mentioned on first version.
> 
> > And FYI, here's what I currently have for the follow-up patch,
> > but that can wait a bit.
> 
> Okay. So, this patch should be applied on the top of above better version?

Yeah, but we may actually want to combine both patches into a
single patch to avoid the save_secure_ram_context 0xffff translation
limit, see my comments in the first version.

Regards,

Tony