[PATCH] ARM: tegra: add basic SecureOS support

[Dave Martin]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:05:04PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin at arm.com> wrote:
> > One way to make the backend generic would be to have something like
> > one of the following (some syntax omitted due to laziness):
> >
> >         u32 __naked __call_smc(u32 r0, ...)
> >         {
> >                 asm volatile (
> >                         stmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,lr}
> >                         smc     #0
> >                         ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,pc}
> >                         ::: "memory"
> >                 );
> >         }
> >
> >         /* The above works for up to 4 u32 arguments */
> >
> >         u32 __naked __call_smc(u32 r0, ...)
> >         {
> >                 asm volatile (
> >                         mov     ip, sp
> >                         stmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,lr}
> >                         ldmia   ip, {r4-r11}
> >                         smc     #0
> >                         ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,pc}
> >                         ::: "memory"
> >                 );
> >         }
> >
> >         /*
> >          * Works for up to 13 u32 arguments, provided the stack is deep
> >          * enough to provide suitable garbage data to fill the registers
> >          * if the caller supplied fewer arguments (a bit of a hack)
> >          */
> >
> >         u32 __naked __call_smc(struct pt_regs *regs) {
> >
> >                 asm(
> >                         stmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,lr}
> >                         /* load regs from <regs> */
> >                         smc #0
> >                         /* save regs back to <regs> */
> >                         ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,pc}
> >                 );
> >         }
> >
> >         /*
> >          * Most generic,  least-efficient version.
> >          * Can return up to 13 u32 results instead of just one.
> >          * For convenience, the r0 value returned by the SMC could be
> >          * left in r0 so that it also determines the return value of the
> >          * function.
> >          *
> >          * Most of the time, SMC shouldn't be called on any hot path,
> >          * otherwise the performance battle is already lost -- so it may
> >          * not be crucial to reach the maximum possible efficiency for
> >          * these calls.
> >          */
> >
> >
> > A particular firmware's Linux glue code might have to put extra stuff
> > around calls to generic_smc, but at least generic_smc itself wouldn't
> > need to be reinvented, and the firmware-specific glue code could usually
> > avoid asm.
> >
> >> Another example is the function that Tomasz shown
> >> (https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos-smc.S?id=refs/tags/next-20130606
> >> ), which preserves r4-r11 but also assumes r3 is an argument - that's
> >> again another slightly different convention.
> >
> > ... for which the above implementations of __call_smc() should work too.
> >
> >> All in all the needs of the various firmwares might end up being just
> >> different enough that we need to have a different backend for each of
> >> them. The firmware_ops defined in arch/arm/include/asm/firmware.h
> >> perform the abstraction at a higher level, which seems more fit here
> >> IMHO.
> >>
> >> Alex.
> >
> > Indeed.  If you think you could work with one of the above generics, we
> > could try it and see what it looks like though.
> >
> > If it's an awkward fit, I might be being too optimistic.
> 
> I agree that your versions would most likely work in our (and probably
> many others) case. But I wonder if individual platforms will not
> prefer to sacrifice the ease of use of a generic version for the
> ability to write faster code that will just preserve what is needed
> (whether that performance gain is justified or not is of course
> subject to debate). I don't have enough hindsight to decide which
> approach is the best, but until we have more examples of firmwares
> that would justify such a factorization, I think I'd like to go with
> our own version first - for there is already more than enough to fix
> in this patch. :)

Sure, I'll have another think based on your repost.

Cheers
---Dave