From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Simek Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 20:00:42 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v7 3/9] armv8: Add Secure Monitor/Hypervisor Call (SMC/HVC) infrastructure In-Reply-To: <20160107162629.GB3359@bill-the-cat> References: <1444841757-28043-1-git-send-email-s.temerkhanov@gmail.com> <1444841757-28043-4-git-send-email-s.temerkhanov@gmail.com> <568D10E5.4060005@gmail.com> <568E7F0F.5000001@xilinx.com> <20160107162629.GB3359@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <568EB5DA.50906@xilinx.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 7.1.2016 17:26, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 04:06:55PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 6.1.2016 14:04, Mateusz Kulikowski wrote: >>> On 14.10.2015 18:55, Sergey Temerkhanov wrote: >>>> This commit adds functions issuing calls to secure monitor or >>>> hypervisore. This allows using services such as Power State >>>> Coordination Interface (PSCI) provided by firmware, e.g. ARM >>>> Trusted Firmware (ATF) >>> >>>> The SMC call can destroy all registers declared temporary by the >>>> calling conventions. The clobber list is "x0..x17" because of >>>> this >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Temerkhanov >>>> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard >>>> Signed-off-by: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla >>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass >>> >>> +1 (I may need it as well) >>> >>> Tested-by: Mateusz Kulikowski >>> >>> Tested on: Hikey >>> Methodology: >>> >>> Hacked smc handler in arm trusted firmware (x0=x0+x1, x1=x2+x3, x2=x4+x5, x3=x6+2) >>> +new u-boot command (smc/hvc) using functions from this patch; >>> >>> I didn't tested hvc code (would need to make some fake hypervisor), but it's basically the same. >>> >>> Idea: perhaps after this series is merged we can add 2 new commands to u-boot (SMC/HVC) to >>> play with hypervisors/secure monitors (and perhaps use some simple functionality if needed). >> >> How this should look like? >> >> Definitely I would like to see this code in mainline because we have >> code which needs to call SMCs. > > I guess the answer is we either need the cavium board series re-posted > without the device-tree binding change that is causing consternation > elsewhere or come up with something else there, or I just pull parts of > the series. I'm not quite sure which is best at this point.. This patch can go standalone I believe. Should it go via Albert or directly through you? I think that make sense to add it in merge window. I am happy to test it on zynqmp. Thanks, Michal