From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757046AbcHWKjW (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:39:22 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:35708 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753768AbcHWKih (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:38:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:38:41 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Will Deacon , Andy Gross , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Srinivas Kandagatla , stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, Bjorn Andersson , sudeep.holla@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: kernel: Add SMC Session ID to results Message-ID: <20160823103841.GD8724@red-moon> References: <1471672274-19317-1-git-send-email-andy.gross@linaro.org> <1471672274-19317-2-git-send-email-andy.gross@linaro.org> <20160822134313.GJ14680@arm.com> <20160822140246.GA30923@hector.attlocal.net> <20160822145326.GK14680@arm.com> <20160823003831.GN6502@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160823003831.GN6502@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:31PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: [...] > This all comes about because the firmware generates a session id > for the SMC call and jams it in x6. The assembly on the > non-secure side is written with a tight loop around the smc > instruction so that when the return value indicates > "interrupted", x6 is kept intact and the non-secure OS can jump > back to the secure OS without register reloading. Perhaps > referring to x6 as result value is not correct because it's > really a session id that's irrelevant once the smc call > completes. Sorry I missed this bit. The session id is _generated_ by secure firmware (probably only when the value passed in x6 == 0 (?)) and actually returned to the caller so that subsequent (interrupted) calls can re-issue the same value, is that correct ? If that's the case the value in x6 is a result value from an SMCCC perspective and your current FW is not SMCCC compliant. Lorenzo