On 12/17/19 7:53 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * 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? > I have a staged change I'm about to post that makes use of this flag from outside of omap-secure.c, otherwise I would have left it internal to that file. I could also have moved the flag in the patch that uses it, but it seemed like an unnecessary change given I know it will be needed here soon. Andrew > Otherwise series looks OK to me, thanks for updating it. > > Regards, > > Tony >
