On 01/10/18 13:46, Julien Grall wrote:
> call_smc is a subset of arm_smccc_smc. Rather than having 2 methods to
> do SMCCC call, replace all call to the former by the later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Use PSCI_RET where needed
> ---
> xen/arch/arm/Makefile | 1 -
> xen/arch/arm/platforms/exynos5.c | 3 ++-
> xen/arch/arm/platforms/seattle.c | 4 ++--
> xen/arch/arm/psci.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> xen/arch/arm/smc.S | 21 ---------------------
> xen/include/asm-arm/processor.h | 3 ---
> 6 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/smc.S
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/Makefile b/xen/arch/arm/Makefile
> index b9b141dc84..37fa8268b3 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/Makefile
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Makefile
> @@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ obj-y += processor.o
> obj-y += psci.o
> obj-y += setup.o
> obj-y += shutdown.o
> -obj-y += smc.o
> obj-y += smp.o
> obj-y += smpboot.o
> obj-y += sysctl.o
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/exynos5.c
> b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/exynos5.c
> index c15ecf80f5..e2c0b7b878 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/exynos5.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/exynos5.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include <asm/platforms/exynos5.h>
> #include <asm/platform.h>
> #include <asm/io.h>
> +#include <asm/smccc.h>
>
> static bool secure_firmware;
>
> @@ -249,7 +250,7 @@ static int exynos5_cpu_up(int cpu)
> iounmap(power);
>
> if ( secure_firmware )
> - call_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0);
> + arm_smccc_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, NULL);
>
> return cpu_up_send_sgi(cpu);
> }
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/seattle.c
> b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/seattle.c
> index 893cc17972..64cc1868c2 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/seattle.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/seattle.c
> @@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ static const char * const seattle_dt_compat[] __initconst
> =
> */
> static void seattle_system_reset(void)
> {
> - call_smc(PSCI_0_2_FN32_SYSTEM_RESET, 0, 0, 0);
> + arm_smccc_smc(PSCI_0_2_FN32_SYSTEM_RESET, NULL);
> }
>
> static void seattle_system_off(void)
> {
> - call_smc(PSCI_0_2_FN32_SYSTEM_OFF, 0, 0, 0);
> + arm_smccc_smc(PSCI_0_2_FN32_SYSTEM_OFF, NULL);
> }
>
> PLATFORM_START(seattle, "SEATTLE")
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/psci.c b/xen/arch/arm/psci.c
> index 941eec921b..4ae6504f3e 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/psci.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/psci.c
> @@ -42,42 +42,53 @@ uint32_t smccc_ver;
>
> static uint32_t psci_cpu_on_nr;
>
> +#define PSCI_RET(res) ((int32_t)(res).a0)
> +
> int call_psci_cpu_on(int cpu)
> {
> - return call_smc(psci_cpu_on_nr, cpu_logical_map(cpu),
> __pa(init_secondary), 0);
> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
> +
> + arm_smccc_smc(psci_cpu_on_nr, cpu_logical_map(cpu), __pa(init_secondary),
> + &res);
> +
> + return PSCI_RET(res.a0);
> }
Sorry if I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation, but why force
all callers to manually extract the return value when it is a fixed
register?
Wouldn't it be far easier to do this:
#define arcm_smccc_smc(...) \
({ \
struct arm_smccc_res res; \
\
if ( cpus_have_const_cap(ARM_SMCCC_1_1) ) \
res = arm_smccc_1_1_smc(__VA_ARGS__); \
else \
res = arm_smccc_1_0_smc(__VA_ARGS__); \
\
(int)res.a0; \
})
Which also allows the compiler to optimise out the structure if it isn't
read, and also avoids the caller needing to pass a NULL pointer for "I
don't want the result".
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
