| Message ID | 79CD15C6BA57404B839C016229A409A83EDAD1B8@DBDE04.ent.ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel- > bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Hiremath, Vaibhav > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 10:39 AM > To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: Tony Lindgren; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Russell King > Subject: [RFC] drivers: irq-chip: Enable SGI's for Secure-to-NonSecure > communication use-cases > > Hi, > > Currently the Software Generated Interrupts (SGI) are restricted to use > only for SMP architecture for inter-processor communication as rightly > documented in ARM GIC spec V1. > > In the system with the uniprocessor (and/or multiprocessor variants) > architecture with TRUSTZONE enabled device (like, AM43xx device), the SGI > can be used for communication between secure-to-nonsecure world. > And in order to enable SGI event from secure world to non-secure world, > GIC driver __must__ support registration of interrupt service routines > for SGI's; which is currently restricted by GIC driver. I am not an expert on this, but as per my understanding the model recommended by ARM is the use of IRQ as a Normal world interrupt source, and FIQ as the Secure world source. If IRQ is received by the Secure world, it should cause a hardware trap to the monitor and the monitor mode should cause a context switch and jumps to the normal world, where the interrupt handler should execute (see reference [1]). For making a transition from the secure world to the normal world and vice-versa, the core should transition via the monitor mode. Assuming a Uniprocessor system running both Normal and Secure world - thus providing a view of two virtual processors running in a time-sliced fashion, the world in which the processor is executing should be indicated by the NS-bit in the Secure Configuration Register (SCR) in CP15. The IRQ, FIQ, Abort exceptions can all be configured to cause the processor to switch into monitor mode. The software that executes within monitor mode is implementation defined, but it generally saves the state of the current world and restores the state of the world being switched to. It then performs a return-from-exception to restart processing in the restored world. (see reference [2]). Does this RFC implementation take into account the monitor mode switch while switching/passing information b/w the two worlds? [1] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.prd29-genc-009492c/CACCDCDH.html [2] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.prd29-genc-009492c/ch03s03s01.html Regards, Bhupesh > The usecase is something like, > > On any asynchronous HW or SW events, certain secure functionality gets > triggered and SGI will be used to notify to the public world on the > completion and/or result of operation. > > Non Secure | Secure (TrustZone) > (Linux Booted | (Secure software init happed > To prompt) | and trusted code getting executed) > | > (On any secure operation Where we would > like public world communication) > | > | - Use SGI to trigger event to > public Linux code > | - And share the public > info/data with public world for further processing > <===== > Public code | > handles it | > > In order to prototype and to make sure that it works, I did change the > GIC driver to allow registration of SGI interrupts (interrupts 0 - 16) > and tried it on AM43xx EVM and pasted the diff of the changes below. > I have also validated using SGI for secure to non-secure communication. > > The idea behind this RFC (or rather query) is, to get feedback or > comments on the use-case of using SGI for secure-to-nonsecure > communication on non-SMP architecture or SMP architecture with > uniprocessor. > I understand that, lot of things I need to take care from SMP > architecture perspective. > Based on the feedback I can spend more time to make below changes more > generic to handle both uniprocessor and multi-processor architectures > including more validation. > > Also, please note that, this requires change in all the DT files using > GIC interrupt controller. > > Any pointers and suggestions are welcome here. > > Thanks, > Vaibhav > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c index > d0e9480..135385a 100644 > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry > gic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs > irqstat = readl_relaxed(cpu_base + GIC_CPU_INTACK); > irqnr = irqstat & ~0x1c00; > > - if (likely(irqnr > 15 && irqnr < 1021)) { > + if (likely(irqnr >= 0 && irqnr < 1021)) { > irqnr = irq_find_mapping(gic->domain, irqnr); > handle_IRQ(irqnr, regs); > continue; > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static void gic_handle_cascade_irq(unsigned int irq, > struct irq_desc *desc) > goto out; > > cascade_irq = irq_find_mapping(chip_data->domain, gic_irq); > - if (unlikely(gic_irq < 32 || gic_irq > 1020)) > + if (unlikely(gic_irq > 1020)) > handle_bad_irq(cascade_irq, desc); > else > generic_handle_irq(cascade_irq); @@ -395,20 +395,20 @@ > static void __init gic_dist_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic) > cpumask = gic_get_cpumask(gic); > cpumask |= cpumask << 8; > cpumask |= cpumask << 16; > - for (i = 32; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) > + for (i = 0; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) > writel_relaxed(cpumask, base + GIC_DIST_TARGET + i * 4 / > 4); > > /* > * Set priority on all global interrupts. > */ > - for (i = 32; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) > + for (i = 0; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) > writel_relaxed(0xa0a0a0a0, base + GIC_DIST_PRI + i * 4 / > 4); > > /* > * Disable all interrupts. Leave the PPI and SGIs alone > * as these enables are banked registers. > */ > - for (i = 32; i < gic_irqs; i += 32) > + for (i = 0; i < gic_irqs; i += 32) > writel_relaxed(0xffffffff, base + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + > i * 4 / 32); > > writel_relaxed(1, base + GIC_DIST_CTRL); @@ -672,7 +672,7 @@ void > gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq) static > int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq, > irq_hw_number_t hw) { > - if (hw < 32) { > + if (hw < 0) { > irq_set_percpu_devid(irq); > irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip, > handle_percpu_devid_irq); @@ - > 696,8 +696,11 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d, > if (intsize < 3) > return -EINVAL; > > - /* Get the interrupt number and add 16 to skip over SGIs */ > - *out_hwirq = intspec[1] + 16; > - > - /* For SPIs, we need to add 16 more to get the GIC irq ID number > */ > - if (!intspec[0]) > - *out_hwirq += 16; > - > + *out_hwirq = intspec[1]; > *out_type = intspec[2] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK; > return 0; > } > @@ -785,11 +780,11 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int > irq_start, > * For secondary GICs, skip over PPIs, too. > */ > if (gic_nr == 0 && (irq_start & 31) > 0) { > - hwirq_base = 16; > + hwirq_base = 0; > if (irq_start != -1) > irq_start = (irq_start & ~31) + 16; > } else { > - hwirq_base = 32; > + hwirq_base = 0; > } > > /* > @@ -803,7 +798,7 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int > irq_start, > gic->gic_irqs = gic_irqs; > > gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */ > - irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(irq_start, 16, gic_irqs, > numa_node_id()); > + irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(irq_start, 0, gic_irqs, > + numa_node_id()); > if (IS_ERR_VALUE(irq_base)) { > WARN(1, "Cannot allocate irq_descs @ IRQ%d, assuming pre- > allocated\n", > irq_start); > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >
> -----Original Message----- > From: bhupesh.sharma@freescale.com > [mailto:bhupesh.sharma@freescale.com] > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 11:02 AM > To: Hiremath, Vaibhav; 'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org' > Cc: 'Tony Lindgren'; 'linux-omap@vger.kernel.org'; 'Russell King' > Subject: RE: [RFC] drivers: irq-chip: Enable SGI's for Secure-to-NonSecure > communication use-cases > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel- > > bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Hiremath, Vaibhav > > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 10:39 AM > > To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > Cc: Tony Lindgren; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Russell King > > Subject: [RFC] drivers: irq-chip: Enable SGI's for Secure-to-NonSecure > > communication use-cases > > > > Hi, > > > > Currently the Software Generated Interrupts (SGI) are restricted to > > use only for SMP architecture for inter-processor communication as > > rightly documented in ARM GIC spec V1. > > > > In the system with the uniprocessor (and/or multiprocessor variants) > > architecture with TRUSTZONE enabled device (like, AM43xx device), the > > SGI can be used for communication between secure-to-nonsecure world. > > And in order to enable SGI event from secure world to non-secure > > world, GIC driver __must__ support registration of interrupt service > > routines for SGI's; which is currently restricted by GIC driver. > > I am not an expert on this, but as per my understanding the model > recommended by ARM is the use of IRQ as a Normal world interrupt source, and > FIQ as the Secure world source. > [Hiremath, Vaibhav] Absolutely and I also follow same recommendation here. > If IRQ is received by the Secure world, it should cause a hardware trap to the > monitor and the monitor mode should cause a context switch and jumps to the > normal world, where the interrupt handler should execute (see reference [1]). > I think I missed to explicitly talk about FIQ in the RFC, sorry for the confusion. Yes, IRQ received by secure world should cause HW trap to monitor mode and Further should cause context switch to public world to handle the interrupt. And this RFC wants to leverage this, where, any operations on secure world, - Functional operation (entered through monitor mode) which want to pass on the event to public world - Any FIQ (secure interrupts) wants to pass on certain events or information to Public world - It could be any secure peripheral interrupt causing FIQ Secure world can use IRQ, which is generated by software to pass on the event information to public world. Please note that, the SGI is non-secure, so if you raise and SGI from secure world it will follow the execution mentioned above. So this RFC enables asynchronous communication channel between secure world to Non-secure world using SGI. > For making a transition from the secure world to the normal world and vice- > versa, the core should transition via the monitor mode. Assuming a > Uniprocessor system running both Normal and Secure world - thus providing a > view of two virtual processors running in a time-sliced fashion, the world in > which the processor is executing should be indicated by the NS-bit in the Secure > Configuration Register (SCR) in CP15. The IRQ, FIQ, Abort exceptions can all be > configured to cause the processor to switch into monitor mode. > > The software that executes within monitor mode is implementation defined, but > it generally saves the state of the current world and restores the state of the > world being switched to. > It then performs a return-from-exception to restart processing in the restored > world. (see reference [2]). > > Does this RFC implementation take into account the monitor mode switch while > switching/passing information b/w the two worlds? > Yes, as recommended by ARM, this RFC is also based on the recommendation, where, monitor mode is responsible for saving and restoring contexts. RFC doesn't handle the monitor mode implementation which lacks context save/restore. Please let me know if you still have any confusion on the usecase and on this RFC Thanks, Vaibhav
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 05:09:04AM +0000, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: > The idea behind this RFC (or rather query) is, to get feedback or > comments on the use-case of using SGI for secure-to-nonsecure communication > on non-SMP architecture or SMP architecture with uniprocessor. > I understand that, lot of things I need to take care from SMP architecture perspective. > Based on the feedback I can spend more time to make below changes more generic to handle > both uniprocessor and multi-processor architectures including more validation. So it seems that your intention is to use the existing infrastructure for this by directing SGIs through the normal IRQ processing. To that idea, I say no way. I also think you need to think more about the changes you're making in your patch - several of them seem to have just been a case of s/32/0/ without any further thought whether that change is actually appropriate. Really, I'd suggest reading the GIC documentation, especially the bits about the first register being banked between each CPU. So changing the setup in the distributor initialisation is only going to hit the register on the CPU it's running on...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@arm.linux.org.uk] > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 6:56 PM > To: Hiremath, Vaibhav > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Tony > Lindgren > Subject: Re: [RFC] drivers: irq-chip: Enable SGI's for Secure-to-NonSecure > communication use-cases > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 05:09:04AM +0000, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: > > The idea behind this RFC (or rather query) is, to get feedback or > > comments on the use-case of using SGI for secure-to-nonsecure > > communication on non-SMP architecture or SMP architecture with > uniprocessor. > > I understand that, lot of things I need to take care from SMP architecture > perspective. > > Based on the feedback I can spend more time to make below changes more > > generic to handle both uniprocessor and multi-processor architectures > including more validation. > > So it seems that your intention is to use the existing infrastructure for this by > directing SGIs through the normal IRQ processing. > > To that idea, I say no way. > You have any other alternative? > I also think you need to think more about the changes you're making in your > patch - several of them seem to have just been a case of s/32/0/ without any > further thought whether that change is actually appropriate. > Really, I'd suggest reading the GIC documentation, especially the bits about the > first register being banked between each CPU. > > So changing the setup in the distributor initialisation is only going to hit the > register on the CPU it's running on... I completely agree with you and I am willing to spend time to have more generic implementation, which will also handle banked registers. The changes were just to prove the secure-to-nonsecure communication concept which I wanted to introduce here as part of this RFC. I will quote my statement again "I understand that, lot of things I need to take care from SMP architecture perspective. Based on the feedback I can spend more time to make below changes more generic to handle both uniprocessor and multi-processor architectures including more validation." Thanks, Vaibhav
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk] >> So it seems that your intention is to use the existing infrastructure >> for this by directing SGIs through the normal IRQ processing. >> To that idea, I say no way. On 6 Jan 2014, hvaibhav at ti.com wrote: > You have any other alternative? I think you need to put Bhupesh Sharma's comment with this. The typical sane mode for GIC with TZ is to have the monitor mode toggle the IRQ/FIQ routing bits in the SCR (cp15) bits 1,2. That is, the IRQ goes direct to core and FIQ goes to monitor from the 'Normal' world. In the 'Secure' world, the FIQ goes direct to core and IRQ traps to monitor. The monitor mode vector table has a gateway from secure to normal for IRQ and gateway from normal to secure for FIQ. Now, consider the 'SMC' instruction and what is present in stuff like this, http://lwn.net/Articles/513756/ mach-omap2/{omap-smc.S,omap-secure.c,omap-secure.h} Instead of messing around with the GIC, why not use something even more generic like the 'SMC' instruction. It has the same sort of 'end game' which is a trap to monitor mode. The monitor has to be a little smarter to determine which world called but this should always be the case; really you want to check this. Btw, the situation is the same no matter which world Linux is in. I don't think Linux can be the recipient of an 'SMC' call. But I think most use cases would put it in the 'normal world' and the SMC is fine. Fwiw, Bill Pringlemeir.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Pringlemeir [mailto:bpringlemeir@nbsps.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:47 AM > To: Hiremath, Vaibhav > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [RFC] drivers: irq-chip: Enable SGI's for Secure-to-NonSecure > communication use-cases > > > > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk] > > >> So it seems that your intention is to use the existing infrastructure > >> for this by directing SGIs through the normal IRQ processing. > >> To that idea, I say no way. > > On 6 Jan 2014, hvaibhav at ti.com wrote: > > > You have any other alternative? > > I think you need to put Bhupesh Sharma's comment with this. The typical sane > mode for GIC with TZ is to have the monitor mode toggle the IRQ/FIQ routing > bits in the SCR (cp15) bits 1,2. That is, the IRQ goes direct to core and FIQ goes > to monitor from the 'Normal' world. In the 'Secure' world, the FIQ goes direct > to core and IRQ traps to monitor. > The monitor mode vector table has a gateway from secure to normal for IRQ > and gateway from normal to secure for FIQ. > > Now, consider the 'SMC' instruction and what is present in stuff like this, > > http://lwn.net/Articles/513756/ > mach-omap2/{omap-smc.S,omap-secure.c,omap-secure.h} > > Instead of messing around with the GIC, why not use something even more > generic like the 'SMC' instruction. It has the same sort of 'end game' > which is a trap to monitor mode. The monitor has to be a little smarter to > determine which world called but this should always be the case; really you want > to check this. > > Btw, the situation is the same no matter which world Linux is in. I don't think > Linux can be the recipient of an 'SMC' call. But I think most use cases would put > it in the 'normal world' and the SMC is fine. > May be I am missing something here, I find your above two statements contradictory, If we want to use SMC as you mentioned, and assuming Secure Monitor mode is intelligent enough to determine the calling world (whether secure or non-secure), then without Linux being recipient (in any world) of an 'SMC' call how can realtime switch possible from secure world to non-secure world?? Just to clarify, The need here is, to switch from secure world to non-secure world on any realtime (multiple) hardware events, which in turn gets processed/handled in non-secure world. In certain cases even we do not want non-secure world know about the hardware event. In this case, the Processing of hardware event completely happens in secure world, and different event/trigger/info/message goes to non-secure world. So just manipulating IRQ/FIQ routing will not solve the need here. :) Thanks, Vaibhav
>>> You have any other alternative? >> From: Bill Pringlemeir [mailto:bpringlemeir@nbsps.com] >> I think you need to put Bhupesh Sharma's comment with this. The >> typical sane mode for GIC with TZ is to have the monitor mode toggle >> the IRQ/FIQ routing bits in the SCR (cp15) bits 1,2. That is, the >> IRQ goes direct to core and FIQ goes to monitor from the 'Normal' >> world. In the 'Secure' world, the FIQ goes direct to core and IRQ >> traps to monitor. The monitor mode vector table has a gateway from >> secure to normal for IRQ and gateway from normal to secure for FIQ. >> >> Now, consider the 'SMC' instruction and what is present in stuff like >> this, >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/513756/ >> Instead of messing around with the GIC, why not use something even >> more generic like the 'SMC' instruction. It has the same sort of >> 'end game' which is a trap to monitor mode. The monitor has to be a >> little smarter to determine which world called but this should always >> be the case; really you want to check this. >> >> Btw, the situation is the same no matter which world Linux is in. I >> don't think Linux can be the recipient of an 'SMC' call. But I think >> most use cases would put it in the 'normal world' and the SMC is >> fine. On 28 Jan 2014, hvaibhav@ti.com wrote: > May be I am missing something here, > I find your above two statements contradictory, > If we want to use SMC as you mentioned, and assuming Secure Monitor > mode is intelligent enough to determine the calling world (whether > secure or non-secure), then without Linux being recipient (in any > world) of an 'SMC' call how can realtime switch possible from secure > world to non-secure world?? I don't think that using an SMC in either world is any different than writing to the GIC distributors SGIR? So, the generation is the same. The monitor switching should be the same. The only difference is where does the world switch ends up. > Just to clarify, > The need here is, to switch from secure world to non-secure world on > any realtime (multiple) hardware events, which in turn gets > processed/handled in non-secure world. In certain cases even we do > not want non-secure world know about the hardware event. In this case, > the Processing of hardware event completely happens in secure world, > and different event/trigger/info/message goes to non-secure world. Ok. Your needs are backwards to my understanding. You want the 'secure/non-linux' to send an SGI to the Linux. Ie, you want the recipient case for the normal world. The normal world can always issue an SMC during boot to register a recipient mechanism. You can fake another interrupt chip or use some other mechanism. > So just manipulating IRQ/FIQ routing will not solve the need here. :) I didn't mean this would solve your problem. I meant this keeps the latency to a minimum when using TrustZone. If an 'interrupt' (FIQ or IRQ) source occurs in the destination world, then the path is as per usual. It is only when an 'interrupt' occurs in the opposite world when a world switch is needed; this is a fairly expensive operation. In your case, it sounds like you want the secure world to handle all interrupts or at least the majority. This has a pre-defined destination in a jump to the vector table of the opposite world. This is the 'recipient' mechanism. At the very least a 'multi-chip' IRQ could be used and you can ldrex/strex with world shareable memory to communicate interrupt sources to the other world; the world shareable memory acts as a 'IRQ controller register set'. With the SMC, you have the opportunity to transfer some information in registers. It has a bigger question of how the schedulers would inter-act. Do you have a scheduler in the secure world? I think these are 'alternatives' as you asked? Regards, Bill Pringlemeir.
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c index d0e9480..135385a 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry gic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs irqstat = readl_relaxed(cpu_base + GIC_CPU_INTACK); irqnr = irqstat & ~0x1c00; - if (likely(irqnr > 15 && irqnr < 1021)) { + if (likely(irqnr >= 0 && irqnr < 1021)) { irqnr = irq_find_mapping(gic->domain, irqnr); handle_IRQ(irqnr, regs); continue; @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static void gic_handle_cascade_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc) goto out; cascade_irq = irq_find_mapping(chip_data->domain, gic_irq); - if (unlikely(gic_irq < 32 || gic_irq > 1020)) + if (unlikely(gic_irq > 1020)) handle_bad_irq(cascade_irq, desc); else generic_handle_irq(cascade_irq); @@ -395,20 +395,20 @@ static void __init gic_dist_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic) cpumask = gic_get_cpumask(gic); cpumask |= cpumask << 8; cpumask |= cpumask << 16; - for (i = 32; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) + for (i = 0; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) writel_relaxed(cpumask, base + GIC_DIST_TARGET + i * 4 / 4); /* * Set priority on all global interrupts. */ - for (i = 32; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) + for (i = 0; i < gic_irqs; i += 4) writel_relaxed(0xa0a0a0a0, base + GIC_DIST_PRI + i * 4 / 4); /* * Disable all interrupts. Leave the PPI and SGIs alone * as these enables are banked registers. */ - for (i = 32; i < gic_irqs; i += 32) + for (i = 0; i < gic_irqs; i += 32) writel_relaxed(0xffffffff, base + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + i * 4 / 32); writel_relaxed(1, base + GIC_DIST_CTRL); @@ -672,7 +672,7 @@ void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq) static int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq, irq_hw_number_t hw) { - if (hw < 32) { + if (hw < 0) { irq_set_percpu_devid(irq); irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip, handle_percpu_devid_irq); @@ -696,8 +696,11 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d, if (intsize < 3) return -EINVAL; - /* Get the interrupt number and add 16 to skip over SGIs */ - *out_hwirq = intspec[1] + 16; - - /* For SPIs, we need to add 16 more to get the GIC irq ID number */ - if (!intspec[0]) - *out_hwirq += 16; - + *out_hwirq = intspec[1]; *out_type = intspec[2] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK; return 0; } @@ -785,11 +780,11 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, * For secondary GICs, skip over PPIs, too. */ if (gic_nr == 0 && (irq_start & 31) > 0) {
Hi, Currently the Software Generated Interrupts (SGI) are restricted to use only for SMP architecture for inter-processor communication as rightly documented in ARM GIC spec V1. In the system with the uniprocessor (and/or multiprocessor variants) architecture with TRUSTZONE enabled device (like, AM43xx device), the SGI can be used for communication between secure-to-nonsecure world. And in order to enable SGI event from secure world to non-secure world, GIC driver __must__ support registration of interrupt service routines for SGI's; which is currently restricted by GIC driver. The usecase is something like, On any asynchronous HW or SW events, certain secure functionality gets triggered and SGI will be used to notify to the public world on the completion and/or result of operation. Non Secure | Secure (TrustZone) (Linux Booted | (Secure software init happed To prompt) | and trusted code getting executed) | (On any secure operation Where we would like public world communication) | | - Use SGI to trigger event to public Linux code | - And share the public info/data with public world for further processing <===== Public code | handles it | In order to prototype and to make sure that it works, I did change the GIC driver to allow registration of SGI interrupts (interrupts 0 - 16) and tried it on AM43xx EVM and pasted the diff of the changes below. I have also validated using SGI for secure to non-secure communication. The idea behind this RFC (or rather query) is, to get feedback or comments on the use-case of using SGI for secure-to-nonsecure communication on non-SMP architecture or SMP architecture with uniprocessor. I understand that, lot of things I need to take care from SMP architecture perspective. Based on the feedback I can spend more time to make below changes more generic to handle both uniprocessor and multi-processor architectures including more validation. Also, please note that, this requires change in all the DT files using GIC interrupt controller. Any pointers and suggestions are welcome here. Thanks, Vaibhav - hwirq_base = 16; + hwirq_base = 0; if (irq_start != -1) irq_start = (irq_start & ~31) + 16; } else { - hwirq_base = 32; + hwirq_base = 0; } /* @@ -803,7 +798,7 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, gic->gic_irqs = gic_irqs; gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */ - irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(irq_start, 16, gic_irqs, numa_node_id()); + irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(irq_start, 0, gic_irqs, numa_node_id()); if (IS_ERR_VALUE(irq_base)) { WARN(1, "Cannot allocate irq_descs @ IRQ%d, assuming pre-allocated\n", irq_start);