On 10/24/19 5:47 PM, Nayna Jain wrote:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h
index 378e3997845a..c1f25a760eb1 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h
@@ -211,7 +211,10 @@
#define OPAL_MPIPL_UPDATE 173
#define OPAL_MPIPL_REGISTER_TAG 174
#define OPAL_MPIPL_QUERY_TAG 175
-#define OPAL_LAST 175
+#define OPAL_SECVAR_GET 176
+#define OPAL_SECVAR_GET_NEXT 177
+#define OPAL_SECVAR_ENQUEUE_UPDATE 178
+#define OPAL_LAST 178
Adjust indentation in the above #defines.
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h
index a0cf8fba4d12..9986ac34b8e2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h
@@ -298,6 +298,13 @@ int opal_sensor_group_clear(u32 group_hndl, int token);
int opal_sensor_group_enable(u32 group_hndl, int token, bool enable);
int opal_nx_coproc_init(uint32_t chip_id, uint32_t ct);
+int opal_secvar_get(const char *key, uint64_t key_len, u8 *data,
+ uint64_t *data_size);
+int opal_secvar_get_next(const char *key, uint64_t *key_len,
+ uint64_t key_buf_size);
+int opal_secvar_enqueue_update(const char *key, uint64_t key_len, u8 *data,
+ uint64_t data_size);
+
Fix alignment of the parameters in the 2nd line.
Same comment in a few other files in this change set.
+
+static int opal_get_variable(const char *key, uint64_t ksize,
+ u8 *data, uint64_t *dsize)
+{
+ int rc;
+
+ if (!key || !dsize)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ *dsize = cpu_to_be64(*dsize);
+
+ rc = opal_secvar_get(key, ksize, data, dsize);
+
+ *dsize = be64_to_cpu(*dsize);
Is it ok to update dsize even if return code (rc) from opal_secvar_get
is an error? Just wanted to confirm.
+
+ *keylen = cpu_to_be64(*keylen);
+
+ rc = opal_secvar_get_next(key, keylen, keybufsize);
+
+ *keylen = be64_to_cpu(*keylen);
Same comment as above.
+
+ set_secvar_ops(&opal_secvar_ops);
Does this set function return status?
+
+ return 0;
+}
