This event has been canceled.
TF-A Tech Forum
Thursday Nov 28, 2024 ⋅ 5pm – 6pm
Central European Time - Paris
We run an open technical forum call for anyone to participate and it is not
restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the
guidance of the TF TSC. Feel free to forward this invite to colleagues.
Invites are via the TF-A mailing list and also published on the Trusted
Firmware website. Details are here:
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/Trusted
Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom
Meetinghttps://linaro-org.zoom.us/my/trustedfirmware?pwd=VktXcm5MNUUyVVM4R0k3ZUtvdU84QT09
One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New
York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location +1
646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) 877
853 5247 US Toll-free 888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970
4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h
Guests
tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
~~//~~
Invitation from Google Calendar: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/
You are receiving this email because you are an attendee on the event. To
stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event.
Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to
the organizer, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of
their own invitation status, or modify your RSVP.
Learn more https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding
This event has been canceled.
TF-A Tech Forum
Thursday Nov 14, 2024 ⋅ 5pm – 6pm
Central European Time - Paris
We run an open technical forum call for anyone to participate and it is not
restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the
guidance of the TF TSC. Feel free to forward this invite to colleagues.
Invites are via the TF-A mailing list and also published on the Trusted
Firmware website. Details are here:
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/Trusted
Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom
Meetinghttps://linaro-org.zoom.us/my/trustedfirmware?pwd=VktXcm5MNUUyVVM4R0k3ZUtvdU84QT09
One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New
York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location +1
646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) 877
853 5247 US Toll-free 888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970
4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h
Guests
tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
~~//~~
Invitation from Google Calendar: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/
You are receiving this email because you are an attendee on the event. To
stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event.
Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to
the organizer, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of
their own invitation status, or modify your RSVP.
Learn more https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding
Hi All,
The next release of the Firmware-A bundle of projects tagged v2.12 has an expected code freeze date of Nov, 8th 2024.
Refer to the release cadence section from TF-A documentation (https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/about/release-informatio…).
Closing out the release takes around 6-10 working days after the code freeze.
v2.12 release preparation tasks start from now.
We want to ensure that planned feature patches for the release are submitted in good time for the review process to conclude.
As a kind recommendation and a matter of sharing CI resources, please launch CI jobs with care e.g.:
-For simple platform, docs changes, or one liners, use Allow-CI+1 label (no need for a full Allow-CI+2 run).
-For large patch stacks use Allow-CI+2 at top of the patch stack (and if required few individual Allow+CI+1 labels in the middle of the patch stack).
-Carefully analyze results and fix the change if required, before launching new jobs on the same change.
-If after issuing a Allow-CI+1 or Allow-CI+2 label a Build start notice is not added as a gerrit comment on the patch right away please be patient as under heavy load CI jobs can be queued and in extreme conditions it can be over an hour before the Build start notice is issued. Issuing another Allow-CI+1 or Allow-CI+2 label will just result in an additional job being queued.
--
Thanks,
Govindraj R
Hello everyone,
I'm seeking a reference code for a Standalone Secure Partition using FF-A. Any guidance or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
TIA,
Akshay
Hi all,
I've sent a few patches for fixing some compilation warnings or issues
on Rockchip platforms [1][2][3][4][5] but I'm left with a few still...
[1] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/33080
[2] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/33081
[3] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/33082
[4] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/33083
[5] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/33084
1) RK3588 symbol redefinition in assembly
========================================================================
commit fc3b98b2124c2b773322da0201e9ad7a697e6323
Author: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz(a)cherry.de>
Date: Mon Oct 28 12:40:18 2024 +0100
fix(rk3588): pmu: fix assembly symbol redefinition
Somehow cpus_pd_req_enter_wfi() gets called multiple times and clang
isn't happy about redefining the same label multiple times (it is an
inline function).
An option could be to force the code to not be inlined (with
__attribute__((noinline))) as removing the explicit inline still made
the compiler inline the code.
Recreate the while loop without a label to fix the clang build issue:
plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c:763:7: error: symbol
'wfi_loop' is already defined
763 | "wfi_loop:\n"
| ^
<inline asm>:5:1: note: instantiated into assembly here
5 | wfi_loop:
| ^
Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz(a)cherry.de>
Change-Id: Ie9f55135b2f95a78deb7cbb94f9a62d3ba61e808
diff --git a/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
b/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
index f693dbdf0..f05d3e58f 100644
--- a/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
+++ b/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
@@ -760,10 +760,10 @@ static inline void cpus_pd_req_enter_wfi(void)
"mrs x0, S3_0_C15_C2_7\n"
"orr x0, x0, #0x1\n"
"msr S3_0_C15_C2_7, x0\n"
- "wfi_loop:\n"
+ "ldr x0, .+4\n"
"isb\n"
"wfi\n"
- "b wfi_loop\n");
+ "br x0\n");
}
static void nonboot_cpus_off(void)
=========================================================================
This only happens for clang and I'm a bit confused as to why. Applying
the above patch fixing that issue but inspecting the assembly code
reveals something really odd.
**With** that patch, with gcc:
25c8c: d510149f msr dbgprcr_el1, xzr
25c90: d538f2e0 mrs x0, s3_0_c15_c2_7
25c94: b2400000 orr x0, x0, #0x1
25c98: d518f2e0 msr s3_0_c15_c2_7, x0
25c9c: 58000020 ldr x0, 0x25ca0
25ca0: d5033fdf isb
25ca4: d503207f wfi
25ca8: d61f0000 br x0
**with** that patch, with clang:
26d2c: d510149f msr dbgprcr_el1, xzr
26d30: d538f2e0 mrs x0, s3_0_c15_c2_7
26d34: b2400000 orr x0, x0, #0x1
26d38: d518f2e0 msr s3_0_c15_c2_7, x0
26d3c: 58000020 ldr x0, 0x26d40 <--- "my" ldr
26d40: d5033fdf isb
26d44: d503207f wfi
26d48: d61f0000 br x0 <--- "my" br
26d4c: 94000e76 bl 0x2a724
26d50: d510149f msr dbgprcr_el1, xzr
26d54: d538f2e0 mrs x0, s3_0_c15_c2_7
26d58: b2400000 orr x0, x0, #0x1
26d5c: d518f2e0 msr s3_0_c15_c2_7, x0
26d60: 58000020 ldr x0, 0x26d64 <--- "my" ldr
26d64: d5033fdf isb
26d68: d503207f wfi
26d6c: d61f0000 br x0 <--- "my" br
So I think the above patch is just a band-aid on what the actually is
but I have no idea what could be going on.
If I use this patch instead, to match the other assembly instructions in
this file
=========================================================================
diff --git a/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
b/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
index f693dbdf0..a4128b214 100644
--- a/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
+++ b/plat/rockchip/rk3588/drivers/pmu/pmu.c
@@ -760,10 +760,10 @@ static inline void cpus_pd_req_enter_wfi(void)
"mrs x0, S3_0_C15_C2_7\n"
"orr x0, x0, #0x1\n"
"msr S3_0_C15_C2_7, x0\n"
- "wfi_loop:\n"
+ "1:\n"
"isb\n"
"wfi\n"
- "b wfi_loop\n");
+ "b 1b\n");
}
static void nonboot_cpus_off(void)
=========================================================================
It happily compiles, though the binary still seems to contain this loop
twice.
Using __attribute__((noinline)) the code is not duplicated, but I assume
this is expected as it would now simply be a function.
2) RK3399 warning array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of 'volatile
unsigned int[0]' [-Warray-bounds=]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In file included from src/dram.c:12:
src/dram.c: In function 'm0_main':
include/rk3399_mcu.h:15:34: warning: array subscript 0 is outside array
bounds of 'volatile unsigned int[0]' [-Warray-bounds=]
15 | (*(volatile unsigned int
*)(c)); __v; })
| ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/rk3399_mcu.h:16:69: note: in definition of macro 'mmio_write_32'
16 | #define mmio_write_32(c, v) ((*(volatile unsigned int
*)(c)) = (v))
|
^
src/dram.c:67:23: note: in expansion of macro 'mmio_read_32'
67 | mmio_read_32(PARAM_ADDR +
PARAM_FREQ_SELECT));
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: note: source object is likely at address zero
In function 'ddr_set_pll',
inlined from 'm0_main' at src/dram.c:71:2:
include/rk3399_mcu.h:14:40: warning: array subscript 0 is outside array
bounds of 'volatile unsigned int[0]' [-Warray-bounds=]
14 | #define mmio_read_32(c) ({unsigned int __v = \
| ^~~
include/rk3399_mcu.h:16:69: note: in definition of macro 'mmio_write_32'
16 | #define mmio_write_32(c, v) ((*(volatile unsigned int
*)(c)) = (v))
|
^
src/dram.c:47:23: note: in expansion of macro 'mmio_read_32'
47 | mmio_read_32(PARAM_ADDR + PARAM_DPLL_CON0));
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
In function 'm0_main':
cc1: note: source object is likely at address zero
In function 'ddr_set_pll',
inlined from 'm0_main' at src/dram.c:71:2:
include/rk3399_mcu.h:14:40: warning: array subscript 0 is outside array
bounds of 'volatile unsigned int[0]' [-Warray-bounds=]
14 | #define mmio_read_32(c) ({unsigned int __v = \
| ^~~
include/rk3399_mcu.h:16:69: note: in definition of macro 'mmio_write_32'
16 | #define mmio_write_32(c, v) ((*(volatile unsigned int
*)(c)) = (v))
|
^
src/dram.c:49:23: note: in expansion of macro 'mmio_read_32'
49 | mmio_read_32(PARAM_ADDR + PARAM_DPLL_CON1));
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
In function 'm0_main':
cc1: note: source object is likely at address zero
include/rk3399_mcu.h:16:35: warning: array subscript 0 is outside array
bounds of 'volatile unsigned int[0]' [-Warray-bounds=]
16 | #define mmio_write_32(c, v) ((*(volatile unsigned int
*)(c)) = (v))
| ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/dram.c:80:9: note: in expansion of macro 'mmio_write_32'
80 | mmio_write_32(PARAM_ADDR + PARAM_M0_DONE, M0_DONE_FLAG);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: note: source object is likely at address zero
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This function is used in many places, but only in very specific places
is it triggering a warning, when PARAM_ADDR is used, but only when
accessed from m0 C files.
PARAM_ADDR is set to 0xc0. From !m0 files, access to PARAM_ADDR seems to
be done through the M0_PARAM_ADDR which is M0_BINCODE_BASE + PARAM_ADDR.
For m0 files, it's directly accessing PARAM_ADDR. I honestly don't
really know why it's complaining for m0 files but not the !m0 ones.
3) RK3399 expected string in '.incbin' directive
This is only for clang.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
<instantiation>:6:10: error: expected string in '.incbin' directive
.incbin
/home/qschulz/work/upstream/trusted-firmware-a/build/rk3399/release/m0/rk3399m0.bin
^
plat/rockchip/rk3399/drivers/pmu/pmu_fw.S:20:1: note: while in macro
instantiation
INCBIN
"""/home/qschulz/work/upstream/trusted-firmware-a/build/rk3399/release/m0/rk3399m0.bin""",
"rk3399m0_bin", ".sram.incbin"
^
<instantiation>:6:10: error: expected string in '.incbin' directive
.incbin
/home/qschulz/work/upstream/trusted-firmware-a/build/rk3399/release/m0/rk3399m0pmu.bin
^
plat/rockchip/rk3399/drivers/pmu/pmu_fw.S:21:1: note: while in macro
instantiation
INCBIN
"""/home/qschulz/work/upstream/trusted-firmware-a/build/rk3399/release/m0/rk3399m0pmu.bin""",
"rk3399m0pmu_bin", ".pmusram.incbin"
^
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
With the following patch:
=========================================================================
diff --git a/plat/rockchip/rk3399/drivers/pmu/pmu_fw.S
b/plat/rockchip/rk3399/drivers/pmu/pmu_fw.S
index 26f331317..ed70cba1f 100644
--- a/plat/rockchip/rk3399/drivers/pmu/pmu_fw.S
+++ b/plat/rockchip/rk3399/drivers/pmu/pmu_fw.S
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
.type \sym, @object
.align 4
\sym :
- .incbin \file
+ .incbin "\file"
.size \sym , .-\sym
.global \sym\()_end
\sym\()_end :
=========================================================================
clang seems happy with that error but the linker triggers another one:
ld.lld: warning: ignoring memory region assignment for non-allocatable
section '.incbin_sram'
ld.lld: error: section '.pmusram' will not fit in region 'PMUSRAM':
overflowed by 3928 bytes
Would appreciate some guidance there :)
Cheers,
Quentin
I’m afraid I’ve not been able to reproduce the .incbin error – it all links fine for me.
$ clang --version
Ubuntu clang version 18.1.3 (1ubuntu1)
Target: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin
Hi,
Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan.
1 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan.
New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan
Showing 1 of 1 defect(s)
** CID 447712: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT)
/plat/arm/board/fvp/fvp_pm.c: 332 in fvp_node_hw_state()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** CID 447712: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT)
/plat/arm/board/fvp/fvp_pm.c: 332 in fvp_node_hw_state()
326 int ret = 0;
327
328 /*
329 * The format of 'power_level' is implementation-defined, but 0 must
330 * mean a CPU. We also allow 1 to denote the cluster
331 */
>>> CID 447712: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT)
>>> This less-than-zero comparison of an unsigned value is never true. "power_level < 0ULL".
332 if ((power_level < ARM_PWR_LVL0) || (power_level > ARM_PWR_LVL1))
333 return PSCI_E_INVALID_PARAMS;
334
335 /*
336 * Read the status of the given MPDIR from FVP power controller. The
337 * power controller only gives us on/off status, so map that to expected
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=u001.AxU2LYlgjL6eX23u9ErQy-2…