[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51BB35DD.4030004@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:25:17 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
CC: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
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>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: tegra: basic support for Trusted Foundations
On 06/14/2013 02:27 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 06/13/2013 03:12 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> Add basic support for booting secondary processors on Tegra devices
>>> using the Trusted Foundations secure monitor.
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/firmware.c
>>
>>> +void __init tegra_init_firmware(void)
...
>>> + node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "tl,trusted-foundations");
>>> + if (node && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TEGRA_TRUSTED_FOUNDATIONS))
>>> + pr_warn("Trusted Foundations detected but support missing!\n");
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TEGRA_TRUSTED_FOUNDATIONS)
>>> + else if (node)
>>> + register_firmware_ops(&tegra_trusted_foundations_ops);
>>> +#endif
>>> +}
>>
>> Is it worth continuing on in the node && !IS_ENABLED case here? After
>> all, we can be pretty certain that the write to the CPU reset vector is
>> immediately going to trap...
>
> That's what was happening until 3.9, but from 3.10 on the trap is
> apparently handled and the boot completes (although with only one
> processor).
Why does that happen; surely the kernel shouldn't be ignoring failures?
How does it recover?
--
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