On 27/06/17 15:40, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hello Julien,
On 27.06.17 14:08, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/22/2017 05:29 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Volodymyr,
On 15.06.17 13:48, Julien Grall wrote:
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
index 6cf9ee7..2d0b058 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
#include <asm/flushtlb.h>
#include <asm/monitor.h>
+#include <asm/smccc.h>
#include "decode.h"
#include "vtimer.h"
@@ -2781,11 +2782,16 @@ static void do_trap_smc(struct
cpu_user_regs *regs, const union hsr hsr)
{
I think it would make sense to push this function in the new file.
Unfortunately, I can't do this, because it uses local functions such as
inject_undef_exception() or advance_pc().
The code is not set in stone. It is perfectly fine to rework it if it
does not fit.
Okay. Probably, I can put forward declarations of the mentioned
functions into as-arm/processor.h.
Should I leave implementation of those functions in the traps.c or
should I move them into processor.c ?
Also, I was expecting some change in the HVC path as you say that
this will be used for both HVC and SMC.
Actually, I plan to use this particular function to handle only SMCs,
because it does SMC-specific tasks, such as calling to a monitor.
HVCs will be handled in different call path in the next patch,
because currently HVC callpath is used by PSCI code.
But your commit title says: "handle SMCs/HVCs according to SMCCC". So
something does not match...
Yes, you are right. I'll rework the patches.
Will you review the V2 series or should I push V3?
I will review the v2 series. I will try to do it today or tomorrow.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
