From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:36:37 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 07/13] ARM: HYP/non-sec: allow relocation to
 secure RAM
In-Reply-To: <20131212114731.17591b11@lilith>
References: <1386415158-8695-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
	<1386415158-8695-8-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
	<20131212114731.17591b11@lilith>
Message-ID: <20140212093637.76953896@lilith>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Albert,

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:47:31 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD
<albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:

> Hi Marc,
> 
> On Sat,  7 Dec 2013 11:19:12 +0000, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue:
> > it cannot run in secure RAM, as a large part of u-boot still needs
> > to be run while we're switched to non-secure.
> > 
> > This patch reworks the whole HYP/non-secure strategy by:
> > - making sure the secure code is the *last* thing u-boot executes
> >   before entering the payload
> > - performing an exception return from secure mode directly into
> >   the payload
> > - allowing the code to be dynamically relocated to secure RAM
> >   before switching to non-secure.
> > 
> > This involves quite a bit of horrible code, specially as u-boot
> > relocation is quite primitive.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/nonsec_virt.S | 161 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/virt-v7.c     |  59 +++++---------
> >  arch/arm/include/asm/armv7.h     |  10 ++-
> >  arch/arm/include/asm/secure.h    |  26 +++++++
> >  arch/arm/lib/bootm.c             |  21 ++---
> >  5 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 141 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/secure.h
> 
> It seems like patch 07/13 does not apply properly on top of current ARM.
> Can you have a look? If a rebased V3 is needed, you can remove patch 01
> from the list (or if it is simpler to you, keep it in and I'll just
> ignore it when applying). 

I don't think there was a V3 for this so far; correct?

> Amicalement,

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.