* Andrew F. Davis <afd@xxxxxx> [191217 23:48]: > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.c > @@ -20,6 +21,18 @@ > > static phys_addr_t omap_secure_memblock_base; > > +bool optee_available; The above can be static bool optee_available? > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-secure.h > @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ > #ifndef OMAP_ARCH_OMAP_SECURE_H > #define OMAP_ARCH_OMAP_SECURE_H > > +#include <linux/types.h> > + > /* Monitor error code */ > #define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_NS2S_CONVERSION_ERROR 0xFFFFFFFE > #define API_HAL_RET_VALUE_SERVICE_UNKNWON 0xFFFFFFFF > @@ -72,6 +74,7 @@ extern u32 rx51_secure_dispatcher(u32 idx, u32 process, u32 flag, u32 nargs, > extern u32 rx51_secure_update_aux_cr(u32 set_bits, u32 clear_bits); > extern u32 rx51_secure_rng_call(u32 ptr, u32 count, u32 flag); > > +extern bool optee_available; > void omap_secure_init(void); And then this change should not be needed, right? Otherwise series looks OK to me, thanks for updating it. Regards, Tony
