[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <704c863a-0b5a-6396-d7da-f0ed17b7cca2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:20:33 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de
Cc: robin.murphy@....com, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
marc.zyngier@....com, behanw@...verseincode.com,
keescook@...omium.org, Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@...aro.org,
mka@...omium.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: trusted_foundations: do not use naked
function
On 25.03.2018 21:09, Stefan Agner wrote:
> As documented in GCC naked functions should only use Basic asm
> syntax. The Extended asm or mixture of Basic asm and "C" code is
> not guaranteed. Currently this works because it was hard coded
> to follow and check GCC behavior for arguments and register
> placement.
>
> Furthermore with clang using parameters in Extended asm in a
> naked function is not supported:
> arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c:47:10: error: parameter
> references not allowed in naked functions
> : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
> ^
>
> Use a regular function to be more portable. This aligns also with
> the other smc call implementations e.g. in qcom_scm-32.c and
> bcm_kona_smc.c.
>
> Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
> Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Keep stmfd/ldmfd to avoid potential ABI issues
>
> arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
> index 3fb1b5a1dce9..689e6565abfc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
> @@ -31,21 +31,25 @@
>
> static unsigned long cpu_boot_addr;
>
> -static void __naked tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
> +static void tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
> {
> + register u32 r0 asm("r0") = type;
> + register u32 r1 asm("r1") = arg1;
> + register u32 r2 asm("r2") = arg2;
> +
> asm volatile(
> ".arch_extension sec\n\t"
> - "stmfd sp!, {r4 - r11, lr}\n\t"
> + "stmfd sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
> __asmeq("%0", "r0")
> __asmeq("%1", "r1")
> __asmeq("%2", "r2")
> "mov r3, #0\n\t"
> "mov r4, #0\n\t"
> "smc #0\n\t"
> - "ldmfd sp!, {r4 - r11, pc}"
> + "ldmfd sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
> :
> - : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
> - : "memory");
> + : "r" (r0), "r" (r1), "r" (r2)
> + : "memory", "r3", "r12", "lr");
Although seems "lr" won't be affected by SMC invocation because it should be
banked and hence could be omitted entirely from the code. Maybe somebody could
confirm this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists