On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:02 PM Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 11:08 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c > > index aba443be7daa..ffe6f1cf0830 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c > > @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ > > #include <asm/mce.h> > > #include <asm/imc-pmu.h> > > #include <asm/bug.h> > > +#include <asm/secvar.h> > > +#include <asm/secboot.h> > > > > #include "powernv.h" > > > > @@ -988,6 +990,9 @@ static int __init opal_init(void) > > /* Initialise OPAL Power control interface */ > > opal_power_control_init(); > > > > + if (is_powerpc_secvar_supported()) > > + secvar_init(); > > + > > The usual pattern here is to have the init function check for support > internally. > > Also, is_powerpc_secvar_supported() doesn't appear to be defined > anywhere. Is that supposed to be is_opal_secvar_supported()? Or is this > series supposed to be applied on top of another series? To answer my own question, yes it depends on the series at [1] which adds IMA support. Turns out actually reading the cover letter helps, who knew. That said, I'm still not entirely sure about this. The implementation of is_powerpc_secvar_supported() in [2] parses the DT and seems to assume the DT bindings that OPAL produces. Are those common with the DT bindings produced by OF when running on pseries? [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=125961 [2] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1149257/ > > > return 0; > > } > > machine_subsys_initcall(powernv, opal_init); >
