Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754036Ab3IQXSH (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:18:07 -0400 Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:13981 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752890Ab3IQXSF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:18:05 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 50.131.214.131 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/MMQcWAr9g+fV3Ty9PdU+V Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:17:44 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= Cc: Dave Martin , =?utf-8?B?0JjQstCw0LnQu9C+INCU0LjQvNC40YLRgNC+0LI=?= , "nm@ti.com" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "aaro.koskinen@iki.fi" , "pdeschrijver@nvidia.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "santosh.shilimkar@ti.com" , "pavel@ucw.cz" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ARM: OMAP: Add secure function omap_smc3() which calling instruction smc #1 Message-ID: <20130917231744.GJ9994@atomide.com> References: <20130916171023.GA17477@localhost.localdomain> <20130917154331.GA9994@atomide.com> <201309171753.24433@pali> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <201309171753.24433@pali> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1120 Lines: 29 * Pali Rohár [130917 09:01]: > On Tuesday 17 September 2013 17:43:31 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Have you guys checked how this works with the recently posted > > "[PATCH v6 0/5] ARM: support for Trusted Foundations secure > > monitor" series? > > this code looks like some Tegra and "Trusted Foundations" > specific. There is Note: The API followed by Trusted Foundations > does *not* follow the SMC calling conventions. Also code calling > smc #0 instruction, so in my opinion for rx51 it is useless. OK, so still no generic SMC code then :( This patch is fine with me. > Tony, can you include this two rx51 secure patches (patch v4 1/2 > and patch v2 2/2)? Or is there some any other problem? No other comments on this patch, I'll post some comments on the v2 2/2 patch considering we're moving to device tree based booting. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/