On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:06:55PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > If that is so fundamentally broken that this is the only benefit, I > > guess we might as well use some old-style SMP ops. > > Broken, for sure. Which is why I'm asking about the benefits of running > non-secure on something that has evidently been very badly integrated, > and for which non-secure is at best an afterthought. > > Now, if someone could try and run guests on this turd and report whether > this works correctly or not, that'd be an interesting data point. > Because in the absence of a TEE running on the secure side, > virtualization is basically the only thing you gain from running on the > non-secure side.
I just tried running Xen on it, with an adjustment similar to what Chen-Yu made in the kernel. It fails at boot, and stops with: (XEN) d0v0: vGICD: unhandled word write 0xffffffff to ICACTIVER4 (XEN) d0v0: vGICD: unhandled word write 0xffffffff to ICACTIVER8 (XEN) d0v0: vGICD: unhandled word write 0xffffffff to ICACTIVER12 (XEN) d0v0: vGICD: unhandled word write 0xffffffff to ICACTIVER16 (XEN) d0v0: vGICD: unhandled word write 0xffffffff to ICACTIVER20 (XEN) d0v0: vGICD: unhandled word write 0xffffffff to ICACTIVER24 (XEN) d0v0: vGICD: unhandled word write 0xffffffff to ICACTIVER0 It looks like it won't be easy to support. I guess we could just go for smp_ops, and if someone really cares one day about it, we'll always have the option to support it then. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
