• Locked Locked
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Subscribers 119 subscribers
  • Views 7231 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

TrustZone with PL310

syuji biwa
Note: This was originally posted on 17th August 2013 at http://forums.arm.com

I plan to use a simple 'TrustZone Monitor'  with PL310(L2CC).
In non-secure, I will play a Linux-Kernel.

One problem.
1. PL310's background-operation(inv.way etc..)  is executing in non-secure.
2. By secure-interrupt, dispatch to secure.
3. In secure, try to execute a write-operation to PL310' register.
May be happen 'DATA-ABORT'.

Do I must control exclusive PL310  secure and non-secure ?

Please help me.
Parents
  • Arm Employee Badge
    Note: This was originally posted on 21st August 2013 at http://forums.arm.com

    I still don't quite understand why you are so keen on the background operations. Assuming you have tied FIQ to secure then the Non-secure world cannot mask interrupts. If you are running an SMP system then stopping all of the cores to run a background operation is rather expensive. 

    Why do you think you need to use the background operations?
    [size=2]
    [/size]
    [size=2]Use the atomic set-way operations, then you don't need any synchronization.[/size]
Reply
  • Arm Employee Badge
    Note: This was originally posted on 21st August 2013 at http://forums.arm.com

    I still don't quite understand why you are so keen on the background operations. Assuming you have tied FIQ to secure then the Non-secure world cannot mask interrupts. If you are running an SMP system then stopping all of the cores to run a background operation is rather expensive. 

    Why do you think you need to use the background operations?
    [size=2]
    [/size]
    [size=2]Use the atomic set-way operations, then you don't need any synchronization.[/size]
Children
No data