From: Ang, Chee Hong <chee.hong.ang@intel.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 0/2] Allow platform specific service handling on PSCI
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 05:51:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1555998710.44218.1.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190313160136.GG8732@bill-the-cat>
On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 12:01 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 08:10:31AM +0000, Ang, Chee Hong wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 15:48 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 03:27:52PM +0000, Ang, Chee Hong wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 13:09 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:27:01AM -0800, chee.hong.ang at intel
> > > > > .com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "Ang, Chee Hong" <chee.hong.ang@intel.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently u-boot only support standard PSCI functions for
> > > > > > power
> > > > > > management
> > > > > > and lack of convenient method to allow the users to extend
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > PSCI
> > > > > > functions
> > > > > > to support platform specific services. Most of the u-boot
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > still rely
> > > > > > on ATF (ARM Trusted Firmware) to handle the standard power
> > > > > > management and
> > > > > > platform specific PSCI services.
> > > > > > The purpose of this patchsets is to allow u-boot users to
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > own platform specific secure SMC/PSCI services without
> > > > > > making
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > SMC calls to ATF. This will benefit the users who need to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > u-
> > > > > > boot as the
> > > > > > only bootloader and secure service provider without relying
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > ATF.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is a simple code example for adding your own PSCI
> > > > > > functions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #include <common.h>
> > > > > > #include <errno.h>
> > > > > > #include <asm/io.h>
> > > > > > #include <asm/psci.h>
> > > > > > #include <asm/secure.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define PSCI_SMC64_FUNC_ID1 0xC2000001
> > > > > > #define PSCI_SMC64_FUNC_ID2 0xC2000002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static void __secure psci_plat_specific_func1(unsigned long
> > > > > > function_id)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > /* Your code for handling the SMC/PSCI platform
> > > > > > specific
> > > > > > service 1 */
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static void __secure psci_plat_specific_func2(unsigned long
> > > > > > function_id)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > /* Your code for handling the SMC/PSCI platform
> > > > > > specific
> > > > > > service 2 */
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DECLARE_SECURE_SVC(plat_specific_func1,
> > > > > > PSCI_SMC64_FUNC_ID1,
> > > > > > psci_plat_specific_func1);
> > > > > > DECLARE_SECURE_SVC(plat_specific_func2,
> > > > > > PSCI_SMC64_FUNC_ID2,
> > > > > > psci_plat_specific_func2);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ang, Chee Hong (1):
> > > > > > ARMv8: Disable fwcall when PSCI is enabled
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chee Hong Ang (1):
> > > > > > ARMv8: Allow SiP service extensions on top of PSCI code
> > > > > Conceptually, I suppose this is a logical step. In
> > > > > specifics,
> > > > > would
> > > > > we
> > > > > want to make this functionality opt-in, or no, that doesn't
> > > > > make
> > > > > sense?
> > > > >
> > > > Allowing user to add platform specific service is part of
> > > > SMC/PSCI
> > > > specification as specifed in ARM document (Table 2-1):
> > > > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0028b/ARM_D
> > > > EN00
> > > > 28B_
> > > > SMC_Calling_Convention.pdf
> > > >
> > > > So I think this functionality should be part of the standard
> > > > PSCI/SMC
> > > > implementation. Currently u-boot only support standard PSCI
> > > > call
> > > > which
> > > > is:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 0x84000000-0x8400001F | PSCI 32-bit calls |
> > > > > 0xC4000000-0xC400001F | PSCI 64-bit calls |
> > > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > My implementation do not affect or alter the behavior of any
> > > > existing
> > > > standard PSCI calls.
> > > >
> > > > Users can simply add their own platform specific services by
> > > > using
> > > > the
> > > > service call range as below:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 0xC2000000-0xC200FFFF | SMC64: SiP Service Calls |
> > > > > 0xC3000000-0xC300FFFF | SMC64: OEM Service Calls |
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > For complete service call ranges please refer to Table 6-2 in
> > > > the
> > > > ARM
> > > > document.
> > > OK, thanks!
> > >
> > Any chance this enhancement get accepted ? Thanks.
> After the current release, if there's no further comments.
>
Hi Tom,
Is this patch being merged into mainline ? Or you have any further
concern or comments ? Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-23 5:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-12 8:27 [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 0/2] Allow platform specific service handling on PSCI chee.hong.ang at intel.com
2019-02-12 8:27 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 1/2] ARMv8: Allow SiP service extensions on top of PSCI code chee.hong.ang at intel.com
2019-04-24 13:22 ` [U-Boot] [U-Boot, v1, " Tom Rini
2019-02-12 8:27 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 2/2] ARMv8: Disable fwcall when PSCI is enabled chee.hong.ang at intel.com
2019-04-24 13:22 ` [U-Boot] [U-Boot, v1, " Tom Rini
2019-02-14 8:53 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 0/2] Allow platform specific service handling on PSCI Ang, Chee Hong
2019-03-05 7:18 ` Ang, Chee Hong
2019-03-08 18:09 ` Tom Rini
2019-03-11 15:27 ` Ang, Chee Hong
2019-03-11 19:48 ` Tom Rini
2019-03-13 8:10 ` Ang, Chee Hong
2019-03-13 16:01 ` Tom Rini
2019-04-23 5:51 ` Ang, Chee Hong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1555998710.44218.1.camel@intel.com \
--to=chee.hong.ang@intel.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox