Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ARM: OMAP: Add secure function omap_smc3() which calling instruction smc #1

[Pali RohÃr]

On Tuesday 17 September 2013 17:43:31 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> [130916 10:18]:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:37:12AM +0100, Pali RohÃr wrote:
> > > On Sunday 08 September 2013 09:43:29 Pali RohÃr wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > +ENTRY(omap_smc3)
> > > > +	stmfd	sp!, {r4-r11, lr}
> > > > +	mov	r12, r0		@ Copy the secure service ID
> > > > +	mov	r6, #0xff	@ Indicate new Task call
> > > > +	dsb			@ Memory Barrier (not sure if needed, copied
> > > > from omap_smc2) +	smc	#1		@ Call PPA service
> > > > +	ldmfd	sp!, {r4-r11, pc}
> > > > +ENDPROC(omap_smc3)
> > > > +
> > > > 
> > > >  ENTRY(omap_modify_auxcoreboot0)
> > > >  
> > > >  	stmfd   sp!, {r1-r12, lr}
> > > >  	ldr	r12, =0x104
> > > 
> > > Dave, it is ok now?
> > 
> > Yes, that's sufficient to warn people to stop and think (at
> > least, if someone copy-pastes it, they will likely
> > highlight the possible error by copy-pasting the comment
> > too).  Thanks.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Have you guys checked how this works with the recently posted
> "[PATCH v6 0/5] ARM: support for Trusted Foundations secure
> monitor" series?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony

Hello,

this code looks like some Tegra and "Trusted Foundations" 
specific. There is Note: The API followed by Trusted Foundations 
does *not* follow the SMC calling conventions.  Also code calling 
smc #0 instruction, so in my opinion for rx51 it is useless.

Tony, can you include this two rx51 secure patches (patch v4 1/2 
and patch v2 2/2)? Or is there some any other problem?

-- 
Pali RohÃr
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.