[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CFDD297.4020600@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:22:15 -0800
From: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: dwalker@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...vell.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Ohlstein <johlstei@...eaurora.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: move consistent_init to early_initcall
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:53PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> The MSM8660 SoC uses the TrustZone technology and the Linux kernel
>> executes in normal/non-secure domain. When the second core is brought
>> out of reset, it starts executing a secure image which then jumps to
>> "secondary_startup". So, before bringing the second core out of reset,
>> we need to inform the secure domain code where secondary_startup is
>> located in memory.
>>
>> We do the communication with the secure code by using buffers in memory.
>> The cache treats the NS (non secure) bit as an additional address bit
>> when tagging memory. Hence, cache accesses are not coherent between the
>> secure and non-secure domains. So, the secure side flushes it's cache
>> after writing to the buffer. To properly read the response from the
>> secure side, the kernel has to pick a buffer that isn't cacheable in the
>> first place. We have similar issues in the reverse direction.
>
> So when ARM gets DMA-coherent caches, you of course aren't going to
> complain that the DMA APIs start avoiding doing the current tricks with
> non-cacheable memory?
>
> I view what you're doing above with the DMA API as an abuse of the API.
> Just like the problems we're facing with ioremap() being used on system
> RAM, you're asking for problems when the ARM architecture changes because
> you're using an API for it's current properties, not for its purpose.
You are right. Thanks for catching this.
So, that basically leaves us with these options:
* Create another API to allow getting uncached pages. I don't think we
will be the first or the last to want uncached pages. Even if ARM
introduces DMA-coherent caches, it's possible for SoC vendors to have
other h/w blocks that could directly operate on memory. The cache might
not be coherent with these h/w blocks.
* Add a cache invalidate API that's outside the DMA APIs and can be used
when needed.
Do one of the above two options sound reasonable to you?
> I've been on for years about purpose-designed APIs for cache issues,
> and every time someone abuses them, they eventually end up suffering
> breakage.
>
> Let's wait until the full set of patches is available before discussing
> further.
Jeff Ohlstein sent out a series of patches ([PATCH 0/5] SMP support for
msm). The patch that deals with talking to the secure domain code is
titled "[PATCH 2/5] msm: scm-boot: Support for setting cold/warm boot
addresses". I see that you replied to an email on that, but it's not
clear if you connected that patch with this thread.
Thanks,
Saravana
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists