Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:53:39 -0400 | From | Christopher Covington <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/36] AArch64: Kernel booting and initialisation |
| |
Hi Catalin,
On 07/20/2012 09:48 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 06:31:07PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: >> On 07/18/2012 02:57 AM, Jon Masters wrote: >>> On 07/06/2012 05:05 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> >>>> +- CPU mode >>>> + All forms of interrupts must be masked in PSTATE.DAIF (Debug, SError, >>>> + IRQ and FIQ). >>>> + The CPU must be in either EL2 (RECOMMENDED) or non-secure EL1. >> >> Why not secure EL1? > > Because the secure side does not have virtualisation extensions so you > won't be able to run something like KVM.
This is another useful explanation to include, in my opinion.
>>> Even though this stuff is likely to be replaced with the result of some >>> of the other standardization, I'd like it if you'd strongly consider >>> removing the "or non-secure EL1". If you give an inch, someone will take >>> a mile and build a system that enters other than in EL2. Or, something >>> to the effect of "the highest non-secure exception level implemented" >>> would be my preference if you don't want to specify. >> >> I think it would be best to list the technical limitations, from the >> kernel's perspective, of the unsupported exception levels and the >> advantages of the supported exception levels here. If you want to guide >> system builders towards EL2, I think it'd be more convincing to document >> the relevant technical aspects (perhaps KVM needs facilities only >> available in EL2) than just providing an unexplained requirement. > > That's not meant to be an official document for SoC designers. It just > states the requirements from the Linux kernel perspective. But ARM is > producing platform design documents covering hardware and firmware > requirements and these will be made available.
I agree that the main audience for this document should be kernel and bootloader hackers and I now think I concentrated a little too much on how my suggestions, meant to advocate for that audience, could be seen as aligned with Jon's comment.
Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
| |