[PATCH v4 REPOST 3/5] omap4: Unconditionally require l2x0 L2 cache controller support

[Rob Herring]

On 12/14/2011 12:39 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Dave Martin <dave.martin at linaro.org> [111214 09:58]:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:25AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Dave Martin <dave.martin at linaro.org> [111214 03:08]:
>>>> If running in the Normal World on a TrustZone-enabled SoC, Linux
>>>> does not have complete control over the L2 cache controller
>>>> configuration.  The kernel cannot work reliably on such platforms
>>>> without the l2x0 cache support code built in.
>>>
>>> There are HS and GP omaps (High Security and General Purpose).
>>> GP omaps do have full control of the L2. Also HS omaps most likely
>>> provide control over enabling and disabling L2 depending how the
>>> secure code is implemented.
>>>
>>> BTW, the real problem is that because the secure code is implemented
>>> in various ways, we don't really have any handling for it in Linux.
>>>
>>> The SMI instruction numbers don't seem to be standardized at all,
>>> and can mean different things on different boards, even different
>>> board versions :(
>>>
>>> Sounds like devicetree is the only safe way to deal with the L2
>>> control options.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>  
>>>> This patch unconditionally enables l2x0 support for the OMAP4 SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Rob Herring for this suggestion. [1]
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin at linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-November/074495.html
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig |    2 +-
>>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig
>>>> index bb1b670..94e568a 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -41,11 +41,11 @@ config ARCH_OMAP4
>>>>  	bool "TI OMAP4"
>>>>  	default y
>>>>  	depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
>>>> +	select CACHE_L2X0
>>>>  	select CPU_V7
>>>>  	select ARM_GIC
>>>>  	select HAVE_SMP
>>>>  	select LOCAL_TIMERS if SMP
>>>> -	select MIGHT_HAVE_CACHE_L2X0
>>>>  	select PL310_ERRATA_588369
>>>>  	select PL310_ERRATA_727915
>>>>  	select ARM_ERRATA_720789
>>>> -- 
>>>> 1.7.4.1
>>>>
>>
>> To clarify, are you suggesting we retain this patch, or not?
> 
> I think we should keep L2 configurable for omaps until we have some
> way of getting the configuration dynamically or from device tree.
>  

This already exists with l2x0_of_init. OMAP just needs to start using
it. It will initialize the l2 if present in the DT and skip it if not
present.

Rob

>> (If we only know what l2x0 support will be needed once the dts is
>> parsed at runtime, there could be an argument for keeping the
>> select CACHE_L2X0 here -- unless we have specific kconfigs for
>> the different security variants of omap.)
> 
> Well we can detect if it's an HS omap, but we may not know what
> SMI it uses for enabling and disabling L2.. That can depend on
> the board version.
> 
> Is there some problem keeping MIGHT_HAVE_CACHE_L2X0? This is
> pretty important from debugging cache issues point of view.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony