- /*
- * Ask OP-TEE to free all cached shared memory objects to decrease
- * reference counters and also avoid wild pointers in secure world
- * into the old shared memory range.
- */
- optee_disable_shm_cache(optee);
+ if (shutdown) {
+ optee_disable_shm_cache(optee);
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * Ask OP-TEE to free all cached shared memory
+ * objects to decrease reference counters and
+ * also avoid wild pointers in secure world
+ * into the old shared memory range.
+ */
+ optee_disable_shm_cache(optee);
Calling optee_disable_shm_cache() in both if and else. It could be
put in front of if().
Ideally, I could just use optee_remove for shutdown() too.
But it would not look good. Hence this approach.
What is the problem with using optee_remove() for shutdown()?
There is no problem, I just thought it would be more cleaner/readable
with this approach. If you'd like to keep it simple by just calling
optee_remove() for shutdown() too, I could quickly send out V2.
In the patch you posted it looks like you'd like to call
only optee_disable_shm_cache() in the case of shutdown. Like:
static void optee_shutdown(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
optee_disable_shm_cache(platform_get_drvdata(pdev));
}
and optee_remove() kept as it was before this patch.
Sure, Will have it fixed and send out V2.
Thanks.
