[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51BA1C3D.1010608@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:23:41 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
CC: Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>, Karan Jhavar <kjhavar@...dia.com>,
Varun Wadekar <vwadekar@...dia.com>,
Chris Johnson <CJohnson@...dia.com>,
Matthew Longnecker <MLongnecker@...dia.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, gnurou@...il.com,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: tegra: set CPU reset handler with firmware
op
On 06/13/2013 03:12 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Use a firmware operation to set the CPU reset handler and only resort to
> doing it ourselves if there is none defined.
>
> This supports the booting of secondary CPUs on devices using a TrustZone
> secure monitor.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.c
> + err = call_firmware_op(set_cpu_boot_addr, 0, reset_address);
> + switch (err) {
> + case -ENOSYS:
> + tegra_cpu_reset_handler_set(reset_address);
> + /* pass-through */
Rather than detecting -ENOSYS and falling back to the custom
tegra_cpu_reset_handler_set(), does it make sense to plug in
tegra_cpu_reset_handler_set as the firmware op when there is no secure
firmware detected? That way, this code wouldn't need the special case;
that would be isolated to firmware.c.
--
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