[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2519047.ijr708V79a@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:58:11 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>,
Alison Wang <b18965@...escale.com>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott Wood <scott.wood@....com>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
Jason Jin <jason.jin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] armv8: aarch32: Execute 32-bit Linux for LayerScape platforms
On Friday, September 23, 2016 4:13:30 PM CEST Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 23/09/16 15:44, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2016 3:24:12 PM CEST Robin Murphy wrote:
> >> On 23/09/16 15:01, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> >> Otherwise you can
> >> always simply run your own shim at EL2 to drive an AArch32 EL1 (it'll
> >> need to trap and translate subsequent SMC calls for e.g. PSCI).
> >>
> >>> If there is such a requirement, it's something begging for standardization.
> >>> Doesn't make sense for multiple divergent approaches for switching from
> >>> aarch64/EL2 to aarch32/EL2.
> >>
> >> Perhaps - I did briefly look into how hard it would be to write a proper
> >> SMC service handler to do this (since ATF does have a framework for such
> >> things), but concluded it would be more than 10 minutes' work and just
> >> cheated instead. It's certainly something which could be raised with the
> >> firmware folks.
> >
> > If we end up allowing all arm64 platforms to be enabled in arch/arm,
> > we could perhaps create a generic implementation that does both of
> > those things, i.e.
> >
> > - Take the arm32 kernel Image or zImage file, wrap it inside of a binary
> > that implements the arm64 boot protocol.
> > - When that starts up, try to use the new PSCI call to jump into
> > the arm32 kernel
> > - If PSCI failed and we are running in EL2, implement the shim
> > and start the arm32 kernel in EL1 mode
>
> Really, though, the firmware call thing is an incredibly niche use-case.
> Beyond development, the only real benefit of starting an AArch32 kernel
> in Hyp is that you can run AArch32 KVM guests, which you can do equally
> well (if not better) under an AArch64 kernel.
This was my question earlier in the thread, apparently Alison has
another use case in mind, but I don't yet know what that is. If
that use case is important enough, we could do it this way.
The only use case I can think of at the moment is boot testing
on kernelci.org, which could be used to check whether all the drivers
work in 32-bit environments.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists