On 12/30/19 12:36 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Andrew F. Davis <afd@xxxxxx> [191218 01:01]: >> 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. > > OK best to post all them together. Or initially just set it static > as otherwise people reading the patches will wonder about it with > no user. And all the automated test systems will start sending out > patches :) > Okay, I'll post everything together, will add the extra patch for AM43xx HS suspend/resume that uses this to the end of this series. Thanks, Andrew > Regards, > > Tony >
