lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: OMAP2+: Introduce check for OP-TEE in omap_secure_init()
From
Date
On 12/17/19 7:53 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * 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?
>


I have a staged change I'm about to post that makes use of this flag
from outside of omap-secure.c, otherwise I would have left it internal
to that file.

I could also have moved the flag in the patch that uses it, but it
seemed like an unnecessary change given I know it will be needed here soon.

Andrew


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-18 02:03    [W:0.043 / U:1.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site