Searched hist:d09220a887f70368afa79e850c95e74890c0a32d (Results 1 – 5 of 5) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/arch/arm/mach-omap2/ |
| H A D | omap-secure.c | diff d09220a887f70368afa79e850c95e74890c0a32d Mon Nov 27 10:57:26 CST 2017 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> ARM: OMAP2+: Fix SRAM virt to phys translation for save_secure_ram_context
With the CMA changes from Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, it
was noticed that n900 stopped booting. After investigating it turned
out that n900 save_secure_ram_context does some whacky virtual to
physical address translation for the SRAM data address.
As we now only have minimal parts of omap3 idle code copied to SRAM,
running save_secure_ram_context() in SRAM is not needed. It only gets
called on PM init. And it seems there's no need to ever call this from
SRAM idle code.
So let's just keep save_secure_ram_context() in DDR, and pass it the
physical address of the parameters. We can do everything else in
omap-secure.c like we already do for other secure code.
And since we don't have any documentation, I still have no clue what
the values for 0, 1 and 1 for the parameters might be. If somebody has
figured it out, please do send a patch to add some comments.
Debugged-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
|
| H A D | omap-secure.h | diff d09220a887f70368afa79e850c95e74890c0a32d Mon Nov 27 10:57:26 CST 2017 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> ARM: OMAP2+: Fix SRAM virt to phys translation for save_secure_ram_context
With the CMA changes from Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, it
was noticed that n900 stopped booting. After investigating it turned
out that n900 save_secure_ram_context does some whacky virtual to
physical address translation for the SRAM data address.
As we now only have minimal parts of omap3 idle code copied to SRAM,
running save_secure_ram_context() in SRAM is not needed. It only gets
called on PM init. And it seems there's no need to ever call this from
SRAM idle code.
So let's just keep save_secure_ram_context() in DDR, and pass it the
physical address of the parameters. We can do everything else in
omap-secure.c like we already do for other secure code.
And since we don't have any documentation, I still have no clue what
the values for 0, 1 and 1 for the parameters might be. If somebody has
figured it out, please do send a patch to add some comments.
Debugged-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
|
| H A D | sleep34xx.S | diff d09220a887f70368afa79e850c95e74890c0a32d Mon Nov 27 10:57:26 CST 2017 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> ARM: OMAP2+: Fix SRAM virt to phys translation for save_secure_ram_context
With the CMA changes from Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, it
was noticed that n900 stopped booting. After investigating it turned
out that n900 save_secure_ram_context does some whacky virtual to
physical address translation for the SRAM data address.
As we now only have minimal parts of omap3 idle code copied to SRAM,
running save_secure_ram_context() in SRAM is not needed. It only gets
called on PM init. And it seems there's no need to ever call this from
SRAM idle code.
So let's just keep save_secure_ram_context() in DDR, and pass it the
physical address of the parameters. We can do everything else in
omap-secure.c like we already do for other secure code.
And since we don't have any documentation, I still have no clue what
the values for 0, 1 and 1 for the parameters might be. If somebody has
figured it out, please do send a patch to add some comments.
Debugged-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
|
| H A D | pm.h | diff d09220a887f70368afa79e850c95e74890c0a32d Mon Nov 27 10:57:26 CST 2017 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> ARM: OMAP2+: Fix SRAM virt to phys translation for save_secure_ram_context
With the CMA changes from Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, it
was noticed that n900 stopped booting. After investigating it turned
out that n900 save_secure_ram_context does some whacky virtual to
physical address translation for the SRAM data address.
As we now only have minimal parts of omap3 idle code copied to SRAM,
running save_secure_ram_context() in SRAM is not needed. It only gets
called on PM init. And it seems there's no need to ever call this from
SRAM idle code.
So let's just keep save_secure_ram_context() in DDR, and pass it the
physical address of the parameters. We can do everything else in
omap-secure.c like we already do for other secure code.
And since we don't have any documentation, I still have no clue what
the values for 0, 1 and 1 for the parameters might be. If somebody has
figured it out, please do send a patch to add some comments.
Debugged-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
|
| H A D | pm34xx.c | diff d09220a887f70368afa79e850c95e74890c0a32d Mon Nov 27 10:57:26 CST 2017 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> ARM: OMAP2+: Fix SRAM virt to phys translation for save_secure_ram_context
With the CMA changes from Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, it
was noticed that n900 stopped booting. After investigating it turned
out that n900 save_secure_ram_context does some whacky virtual to
physical address translation for the SRAM data address.
As we now only have minimal parts of omap3 idle code copied to SRAM,
running save_secure_ram_context() in SRAM is not needed. It only gets
called on PM init. And it seems there's no need to ever call this from
SRAM idle code.
So let's just keep save_secure_ram_context() in DDR, and pass it the
physical address of the parameters. We can do everything else in
omap-secure.c like we already do for other secure code.
And since we don't have any documentation, I still have no clue what
the values for 0, 1 and 1 for the parameters might be. If somebody has
figured it out, please do send a patch to add some comments.
Debugged-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
|