On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 10:57, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Yes, that is fine. Or I can put that patch on a stable branch by itself.
