[U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [RFC PATCH 8/8] sunxi: enable PSCI for A83T SoC

Sun Jul 2 07:08:12 UTC 2017

在 2017-06-23 21:50，Chen-Yu Tsai 写道：
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:39 PM,  <icenowy at aosc.io> wrote:
>> 在 2017-06-23 21:35，Maxime Ripard 写道：
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 09:24:25PM +0800, icenowy at aosc.io wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 在 2017-06-07 20:51，Marc Zyngier 写道：
>>>> > On 07/06/17 13:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 于 2017年6月7日 GMT+08:00 下午8:11:12, Marc Zyngier
>>>> > > <marc.zyngier at arm.com> 写到:
>>>> > > > On 07/06/17 08:00, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>>> > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Maxime Ripard
>>>> > > > > <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:47:24AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Icenowy Zheng
>>>> > > > > > > <icenowy at aosc.io>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > 于 2017年6月7日 GMT+08:00 上午11:36:27, Chen-Yu
>>>> > > > > > > > Tsai <wens at csie.org> 写到:
>>>> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Icenowy Zheng
>>>> > > > > > > > > <icenowy at aosc.io>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > > > As we have now a basical implementation
>>>> > > > > > > > > > of PSCI for A83T, enable
>>>> > > > > > > > > > non-secure boot support and PSCI on A83T now.
>>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy at aosc.io>
>>>> > > > > > > > > > ---
>>>> > > > > > > > > >  arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 4 ++++
>>>> > > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
>>>> > > > > > > > > b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
>>>> > > > > > > > > > index 7ced838d6a..31d29de428 100644
>>>> > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
>>>> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
>>>> > > > > > > > > > @@ -98,8 +98,12 @@ config MACH_SUN8I_A33
>>>> > > > > > > > > >  config MACH_SUN8I_A83T
>>>> > > > > > > > > >         bool "sun8i (Allwinner A83T)"
>>>> > > > > > > > > >         select CPU_V7
>>>> > > > > > > > > > +       select CPU_V7_HAS_NONSEC
>>>> > > > > > > > > > +       select CPU_V7_HAS_VIRT
>>>> > > > > > > > > > +       select ARCH_SUPPORT_PSCI
>>>> > > > > > > > > >         select SUNXI_GEN_SUN6I
>>>> > > > > > > > > >         select SUPPORT_SPL
>>>> > > > > > > > > > +       select ARMV7_BOOT_SEC_DEFAULT if
>>>> > > > > > > > > > OLD_SUNXI_KERNEL_COMPAT
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > The kernel does not work yet. Please have it boot to
>>>> > > > > > > > > secure by
>>>> > > > default
>>>> > > > > > > > > regardless of the kernel. We can have it
>>>> > > > > > > > > boot non-secure once the
>>>> > > > > > > > > kernel
>>>> > > > > > > > > has been working for a reasonable amount of time.
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > I don't want clueless users coming and asking why it
>>>> > > > > > > > > suddenly
>>>> > > > stopped
>>>> > > > > > > > > working. This should be an experimental feature.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Maybe you should send out the fix, and tag them to also
>>>> > > > > > > > apply to
>>>> > > > > > > > stable tree.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > GIC is really broken, UP systems only work by chance. We
>>>> > > > > > > > shouldn't depend on this behavior.
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > As I previously explained, it is not the GIC that is broken.
>>>> > > > > > > I
>>>> > > > believe
>>>> > > > > > > the GIC is working exactly as it is supposed to with
>>>> > > > > > > regards to its
>>>> > > > > > > input signals.
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Allwinner's security extensions implementation simply does
>>>> > > > > > > not
>>>> > > > properly
>>>> > > > > > > forward the AXI secure bit when the e-fuse's secure bit isn't
>>>> > > > burned.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Arghh. Puke. Now I remember this, and I wish I didn't...
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > Is that on all revisions, or just the revB ?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > It's the A80, but I'm guessing the same applies to the A83T. It's
>>>> > > > more
>>>> > > > > of a guess really, but I think it's a logical one. If the e-fuse
>>>> > > > isn't
>>>> > > > > programmed, the TZPC doesn't work, and access to all secure
>>>> > > > peripherals
>>>> > > > > still work, even from non-secure mode. The only one that
>>>> > > > > does work is
>>>> > > > > the secure SRAM.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > The GIC still has the banked secure/non-secure registers, just
>>>> > > > > that
>>>> > > > all
>>>> > > > > cores access the secure bank, even when in non-secure mode. The
>>>> > > > workaround
>>>> > > > > is to use the alias set of non-secure registers in Linux.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > That's a pretty dire workaround. Also, I expect that secure writes
>>>> > > > to
>>>> > > > GICV/GICH will not do the right thing. At this point, what is the
>>>> > > > requirement for running non-secure?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Write Secure Boot eFUSE, which will break *all* existing softwares.
>>>> >
>>>> > Don't do it, then.
>>>> >
>>>> > Any other *real* use case for running non-secure? As in "Stuff that
>>>> > would benefit to a user"? Because if the answer is "none" as I suspect
>>>> > it is, you might as well keep the system in secure mode.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe we should then use legacy SMP bringup method (code in kernel)
>>>> rather than PSCI?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I guess it all depends on the answer to Marc's question. If
>>> virtualization doesn't work, then we don't have any incentive anymore
>>> to use PSCI and that would be a sensible option, yes.
>> 
>> 
>> I remember non-secure is a dependency for virtualization (HYP mode).
>> 
>> So if we do not do the workaround on GIC, we won't have stable
>> non-secure, then we won't have HYP mode, then we can drop PSCI.
> 
> I think you got it the other way around.
> 
> If virtualization doesn't work, despite the workaround, then there's
> no need for it, and we can just do legacy SMP.

I tried `qemu-system-arm -enable-kvm` on A83T with this patchset and
Chen-Yu's GIC workaround patchset, and *FAILED*.

The workaround patchset in fact slightly broke vGIC code by changing
a macro name -- it's easy to fix.

However, it seems that with this fixed the KVM cannot still work --
I tried to start a virtual machine, but it silently fails (no kernel
log are shown when the VM starting fails).

So, at least this workaround cannot let virtualization work.

> 
> ChenYu