From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752977AbbHTVay (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:30:54 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:57803 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752137AbbHTVaw (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:30:52 -0400
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:30:29 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "valentin.manea@huawei.com" <valentin.manea@huawei.com>,
        "javier@javigon.com" <javier@javigon.com>,
        "emmanuel.michel@st.com" <emmanuel.michel@st.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        "jean-michel.delorme@st.com" <jean-michel.delorme@st.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] arm/arm64: add smccc ARCH32
Message-ID: <20150820213029.GA1426@svinekod>
References: <1439973629-19505-1-git-send-email-jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
 <1439973629-19505-2-git-send-email-jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
 <20150819165009.GC10297@arm.com>
 <20150820113729.GA25962@ermac>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150820113729.GA25962@ermac>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:37:29PM +0100, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:50:09PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:40:25AM +0100, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > > Adds helpers to do SMC based on ARM SMC Calling Convention.
> > > CONFIG_HAVE_SMCCC is enabled for architectures that may support
> > > the SMC instruction. It's the responsibility of the caller to
> > > know if the SMC instruction is supported by the platform.

[...]

> > > +       mov     x28, x0
> > > +       ldp     w0, w1, [x28, #SMC_PARAM_W0_OFFS]
> > > +       ldp     w2, w3, [x28, #SMC_PARAM_W2_OFFS]
> > > +       ldp     w4, w5, [x28, #SMC_PARAM_W4_OFFS]
> > > +       ldp     w6, w7, [x28, #SMC_PARAM_W6_OFFS]
> > > +       smc     #0
> > > +       stp     w0, w1, [x28, #SMC_PARAM_W0_OFFS]
> > > +       stp     w2, w3, [x28, #SMC_PARAM_W2_OFFS]
> > > +       ldp     x28, x30, [sp], #16
> > > +       ret
> > > +ENDPROC(smccc_call32)
> > 
> > Could we deal with this like we do for PSCI instead? (see
> > __invoke_psci_fn_smc). We could also then rename psci-call.S to fw-call.S
> > and stick this in there too.
> 
> I assume you're referring to when to use "hvc" and "smc".

I assume he's on about passing the values in registers rather than a struct.

>>From the looks of the SMC Calling Convention documentation, it's valid to have
return values in registers r0-r3, which necessitates the use of a struct (at
least for the return values).

Thanks,
Mark.