[U-Boot] [PATCH v6 2/2] armv8: fsl-layerscape: Make DDR non secure in MMU tables

[Hou Zhiqiang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: York Sun [mailto:yorksun at freescale.com]
> Sent: 2015年12月3日 0:00
> To: Hou Zhiqiang-B48286; U-Boot Mailing List
> Cc: Pan Lijun-B44306; Hu Mingkai-B21284; Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; Gong
> Qianyu-B52263; Tom Rini; Li Yang-Leo-R58472; Albert Aribaud; Kushwaha
> Prabhakar-B32579; Wang Huan-B18965
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] armv8: fsl-layerscape: Make DDR non secure in
> MMU tables
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/01/2015 10:38 PM, Hou Zhiqiang-B48286 wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>  	/* Invalidate all table entries */
> >>  	memset(level0_table, 0, PGTABLE_SIZE); @@ -269,6 +344,22 @@ static
> >> inline void final_mmu_setup(void)
> >>  			       &final_mmu_table[i]);
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >> +	/* Set the secure memory to secure in MMU */ #ifdef
> >> +CONFIG_SYS_MEM_RESERVE_SECURE
> >> +	if (gd->secure_ram & MEM_RESERVE_SECURE_MAINTAINED) { #ifdef
> >> +CONFIG_FSL_LSCH3
> >> +		level2_table_secure = level2_table1 + 512; #elif
> >> +defined(CONFIG_FSL_LSCH2)
> >> +		level2_table_secure = level2_table2 + 512; #endif
> >> +		/* update tlb pointer */
> >> +		gd->arch.tlb_addr = gd->secure_ram & ~0x3;
> >
> > The memory reserved for mmu table was lost? If it's better to record it
> and use for non-sec mmu table?
> 
> That can be arranged.
> 
> >
> > If this func is called from non-secure state, for example EL2, the
> secure memory cannot be accessed and the PMD_SECT_NS bit should be
> cleared.
> 
> We need to setup secure memory at EL3 to have secure memory to begin with.
> But you have a point here. Will look into it.
> 

Yes, this func is called at EL3 for now, it is a assumption for this func.
I mean we'd better make it a API that can be invoked at both EL3 and EL2 
to setup the MMU table. And do you know if the EL1 should be taken into 
account in u-boot?

Thanks,
Zhiqiang