public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns•com (Marc Gonzalez)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] arm-soc: Add support for Sigma Designs Tango4
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:50:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56260E56.10403@sigmadesigns.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_Jsq+jthx9ffnUm-G-TV9LdxBRp3SKyhyfcVu=7kN3CuumJw@mail.gmail.com>

On 19/10/2015 18:39, Rob Herring wrote:

> Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> About the cache controller, I was confused by this comment:
>>         /*
>>          * Always enable non-secure access to the lockdown registers -
>>          * we write to them as part of the L2C enable sequence so they
>>          * need to be accessible.
>>          */
>>         l2x0_saved_regs.aux_ctrl = aux | L310_AUX_CTRL_NS_LOCKDOWN;
>>
>> I see no lock() function, only unlock().
>>
>> But the unlock function merely writes 0 to the relevant registers,
>> and 0 is the value at reset for those registers. Since nothing ever
>> sets the registers to non-zero, why is the unlock needed at all?
> 
> It was because some bootloaders set those registers. Linux just wants
> them to be all unlocked.

I see.

My problem then, is that my current firmware does not set L310_AUX_CTRL_NS_LOCKDOWN
and does not allow updating that bit.

So when l2c_unlock() is called, Linux (running in non-secure mode)
tries to write to read-only registers:

> On reset, the Non-Secure Lockdown Enable bit is set to 0 and Lockdown
> Registers are not permitted to be modified by non-secure accesses. In
> that configuration, if a non-secure access tries to write to those
> registers, the write response returns a DECERR response. This decode 
> error results in the registers not being updated.

I suppose "a DECERR response" means Linux will oops?

I see several options to work-around this problem:

A) Have the firmware set L310_AUX_CTRL_NS_LOCKDOWN at boot

B) Have the firmware allow Linux to set L310_AUX_CTRL_NS_LOCKDOWN

C) Have a way in Linux to define .unlock as a NOP (trusting the
firmware to NOT have locked anything)
Perhaps adding a "no-unlock-required;" boolean property to the l2cc
node, which would override the .unlock method?

I'd like to hear suggestions on the "best" approach.

Regards.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-10-20  9:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-02 16:02 [PATCH] arm-soc: Add Sigma Designs Tango4 port Mason
2015-10-02 16:10 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-02 16:33   ` Mason
2015-10-02 16:55     ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-02 18:00       ` Mason
2015-10-02 17:13     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-10-02 18:09       ` Mason
2015-10-02 18:53         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-10-02 19:25           ` Mason
2015-10-02 19:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-02 20:53   ` Mason
2015-10-02 21:11     ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-02 21:57       ` Mason
2015-10-02 22:12         ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-05 16:25           ` [PATCH v2] arm-soc: Add support for Sigma Designs Tango4 Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-06 15:57             ` [PATCH v3] " Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-09 13:18               ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-09 13:30                 ` Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-09 14:40                 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-09 19:01                 ` Mason
2015-10-09 20:24                   ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-09 21:12                     ` Mason
2015-10-09 14:08               ` Rob Herring
2015-10-09 14:16                 ` Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-09 14:48                   ` Rob Herring
2015-10-13 15:54                 ` Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-13 17:55                   ` Rob Herring
2015-10-19 11:09                     ` Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-19 16:39                       ` Rob Herring
2015-10-19 17:32                         ` Mark Rutland
2015-10-20  9:20                           ` Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-20  9:50                         ` Marc Gonzalez [this message]
2015-10-20 10:04                           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-10-20 10:54                             ` Marc Gonzalez
2015-10-09 14:12             ` [PATCH v2] " Rob Herring

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=56260E56.10403@sigmadesigns.com \
    --to=marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns$(echo .)com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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