On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 16:09, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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: > > > > > ... > > > > > 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. > > > > Actually, this was rather straight-forward so I folded this change > into your ARM patch. I see you have the generic version for all archs except arm64 and x86 as we discussed earlier. Since you have even included the arm64 changes, the PRMT enablement patches need to routed via your tree now as it depends on the change you have in your -next. Are you OK with that if Rafael agrees ? I can ask him on the other thread. No further changes are needed. Let me know. -- Regards, Sudeep
