lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: OMAP2+: Introduce check for OP-TEE in omap_secure_init()
* Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> [191217 23:48]:
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c
> @@ -20,6 +21,18 @@
>
> static phys_addr_t omap_secure_memblock_base;
>
> +bool optee_available;

The above can be static bool optee_available?

> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
> #ifndef OMAP_ARCH_OMAP_SECURE_H
> #define OMAP_ARCH_OMAP_SECURE_H
>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +
> /* Monitor error code */
> #define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_NS2S_CONVERSION_ERROR 0xFFFFFFFE
> #define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_SERVICE_UNKNWON 0xFFFFFFFF
> @@ -72,6 +74,7 @@ extern u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 process, u32 flag, u32 nargs,
> extern u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits);
> extern u32 rx51_secure_rng_call(u32 ptr, u32 count, u32 flag);
>
> +extern bool optee_available;
> void omap_secure_init(void);

And then this change should not be needed, right?

Otherwise series looks OK to me, thanks for updating it.

Regards,

Tony

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-18 01:53    [W:0.048 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site