[PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: move consistent_init to early_initcall
skannan at codeaurora.org
Tue Dec 7 01:22:15 EST 2010
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:53PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> The MSM8660 SoC uses the TrustZone technology and the Linux kernel
>> executes in normal/non-secure domain. When the second core is brought
>> out of reset, it starts executing a secure image which then jumps to
>> "secondary_startup". So, before bringing the second core out of reset,
>> we need to inform the secure domain code where secondary_startup is
>> located in memory.
>> We do the communication with the secure code by using buffers in memory.
>> The cache treats the NS (non secure) bit as an additional address bit
>> when tagging memory. Hence, cache accesses are not coherent between the
>> secure and non-secure domains. So, the secure side flushes it's cache
>> after writing to the buffer. To properly read the response from the
>> secure side, the kernel has to pick a buffer that isn't cacheable in the
>> first place. We have similar issues in the reverse direction.
> So when ARM gets DMA-coherent caches, you of course aren't going to
> complain that the DMA APIs start avoiding doing the current tricks with
> non-cacheable memory?
> I view what you're doing above with the DMA API as an abuse of the API.
> Just like the problems we're facing with ioremap() being used on system
> RAM, you're asking for problems when the ARM architecture changes because
> you're using an API for it's current properties, not for its purpose.
You are right. Thanks for catching this.
So, that basically leaves us with these options:
* Create another API to allow getting uncached pages. I don't think we
will be the first or the last to want uncached pages. Even if ARM
introduces DMA-coherent caches, it's possible for SoC vendors to have
other h/w blocks that could directly operate on memory. The cache might
not be coherent with these h/w blocks.
* Add a cache invalidate API that's outside the DMA APIs and can be used
Do one of the above two options sound reasonable to you?
> I've been on for years about purpose-designed APIs for cache issues,
> and every time someone abuses them, they eventually end up suffering
> Let's wait until the full set of patches is available before discussing
Jeff Ohlstein sent out a series of patches ([PATCH 0/5] SMP support for
msm). The patch that deals with talking to the secure domain code is
titled "[PATCH 2/5] msm: scm-boot: Support for setting cold/warm boot
addresses". I see that you replied to an email on that, but it's not
clear if you connected that patch with this thread.
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel