On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:57:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 15:47, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:16:26PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 14:59, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Currently, the arch_efi_call_virt() assumes all users of it will have > > > > defined a type 'efi_##f##_t' to make use of it. It is unnecessarily > > > > forcing the users to create a new typedef when __efi_rt_asm_wrapper() > > > > actually expects void pointer. > > > > > > > > Simplify the arch_efi_call_virt() macro by using typeof(p->f) which must > > > > be a pointer as required by __efi_rt_asm_wrapper() and eliminate the > > > > explicit need for efi_##f##_t type for every user of this macro. > > > > > > > > This change is done to align with implementations on other similar > > > > architectures. > > > > > > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h | 3 +-- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Reference for this change [1] and in particular[2] > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sudeep > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220628125346.693304-1-sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220628125346.693304-3-sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h > > > > index 27218eabbf9a..d4a405c9b4b6 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h > > > > @@ -26,8 +26,7 @@ int efi_set_mapping_permissions(struct mm_struct *mm, efi_memory_desc_t *md); > > > > > > > > #define arch_efi_call_virt(p, f, args...) \ > > > > ({ \ > > > > - efi_##f##_t *__f; \ > > > > - __f = p->f; \ > > > > + typeof(p->f) __f = p->f; \ > > > > __f(args); \ > > > > }) > > > > > > > > > > I think this could simply be > > > > > > #define arch_efi_call_virt(p, f, args...) ((p)->f(args)) > > > > > > no? > > > > Yes, I came to similar conclusion just after sending this out as I started to > > look if we can have one generic definition for arm/arm64/riscv/loongarch. > > > > Not really - arm64 has the asm wrapper, and loongarch is only halfway > merged so I'm not sure yet if this is the final form. > Aargh! arm64 was typo, indeed arm64 has wrapper. I meant to refer other 3 archs. > > I am yet to figure out how asm/efi.h and linux/efi.h are included so that > > we can have generic definition in linux/efi.h and x86 can undefine that > > and redefine its own version. > > > > Does that make sense ? > > > > I appreciate the effort, but for now, let's just fix the ones we need > to fix (and the ARM one too while we're at it). PRM can only be > enabled on x86 and arm64 anyway. True. OK then I will just update ARM version and leave loongarch as is. -- Regards, Sudeep
