On Wed, Oct 15 2014 at 03:05:24 PM, Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:42:33 +0100 Marc Zyngier marc.zyngier@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15 2014 at 11:40:24 AM, Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:31:44 +0100 Marc Zyngier marc.zyngier@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15 2014 at 11:25:10 AM, Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:13:05 +0200 Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com wrote:
Older Linux kernels will not properly boot in hype mode, add support for a bootm_boot_mode environment variable, which when set to "sec" will cause u-boot to boot in secure mode even when build with non-sec (and hyp) support.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com
arch/arm/lib/bootm.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c index 39fe7a1..037fc8d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c +++ b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c @@ -235,6 +235,18 @@ static void boot_prep_linux(bootm_headers_t *images) } }
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC) || defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_VIRT) +static bool boot_nonsec(void) +{
- char *s = getenv("bootm_boot_mode");
- if (s && !strcmp(s, "sec"))
return false;- return true;
+} +#endif
/* Subcommand: GO */ static void boot_jump_linux(bootm_headers_t *images, int flag) { @@ -283,12 +295,13 @@ static void boot_jump_linux(bootm_headers_t *images, int flag)
if (!fake) { #if defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC) || defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_VIRT)
armv7_init_nonsec();secure_ram_addr(_do_nonsec_entry)(kernel_entry,0, machid, r2);-#else
kernel_entry(0, machid, r2);
if (boot_nonsec()) {armv7_init_nonsec();secure_ram_addr(_do_nonsec_entry)(kernel_entry,0, machid, r2);}#endif
kernel_entry(0, machid, r2);#endif }
BTW, I'm currently achieving the same result, but without the need to do extra environment configuration gymnastics for the end users: https://github.com/ssvb/u-boot-sunxi-dram/commit/e914abe551e712a59a8fc1ac9a4...
And thus preventing kernels with appended DT (not provided by u-boot), but still using HYP/non-sec/PSCI from booting.
Sorry, but using DT as a way to distinguish between all these cases is just wrong.
Thanks,
Do you see the HACK prefix in the summary of that patch?
I do. But the fact that you even mention it here makes me think that you believe it is a better approach that Hans'.
The need to meddle with the environment variables makes Hans' approach immensely less useful for the end users.
In your Ivory Tower, you may think that you have resolved the problem. But in reality, u-boot will still have to be patched before deploying it to the end users in order to prevent them from running into troubles.
My position in a nice ivory tower allows me to see further than you seem to do, and makes me prefer robust solutions, as opposed to random hacks that impact unsuspecting users by modifying the way things gets booted based on decisions made by someone who may or may not have any idea of what said users are trying to achieve.
Hans' solution is simple, robust, and doesn't randomly change behaviour. That's definitely good enough for me.
M.