Arm Community
Site
Search
User
Site
Search
User
Groups
Education Hub
Distinguished Ambassadors
Open Source Software and Platforms
Research Collaboration and Enablement
Forums
AI and ML forum
Architectures and Processors forum
Arm Development Platforms forum
Arm Development Studio forum
Arm Virtual Hardware forum
Automotive forum
Compilers and Libraries forum
Graphics, Gaming, and VR forum
High Performance Computing (HPC) forum
Infrastructure Solutions forum
Internet of Things (IoT) forum
Keil forum
Morello forum
Operating Systems forum
SoC Design and Simulation forum
SystemReady Forum
Blogs
AI and ML blog
Announcements
Architectures and Processors blog
Automotive blog
Graphics, Gaming, and VR blog
High Performance Computing (HPC) blog
Infrastructure Solutions blog
Internet of Things (IoT) blog
Operating Systems blog
SoC Design and Simulation blog
Tools, Software and IDEs blog
Support
Arm Support Services
Documentation
Downloads
Training
Arm Approved program
Arm Design Reviews
Community Help
More
Cancel
Support forums
Arm Development Studio forum
TrustZone with PL310
Jump...
Cancel
Locked
Locked
Replies
10 replies
Subscribers
119 subscribers
Views
6677 views
Users
0 members are here
Options
Share
More actions
Cancel
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
over 10 years ago
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
Peter Harris
over 10 years ago
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]
Cancel
Up
0
Down
Cancel
Reply
Peter Harris
over 10 years ago
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]
Cancel
Up
0
Down
Cancel
Children
No data