On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:24:57AM +0000, JeeHeng Sia wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 9:13 PM > > To: JeeHeng Sia <jeeheng.sia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Atish Patra > > <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Björn Töpel > > <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Song Shuai <suagrfillet@xxxxxxxxx>; Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux- > > riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [RFT 1/2] RISC-V: handle missing "no-map" properties for OpenSBI's PMP protected regions > > > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 12:44:07AM +0000, JeeHeng Sia wrote: > > > > > > +/* SBI implementation IDs */ > > > > +#define SBI_IMP_OPENSBI 1 > > > I would suggest to create an enum struct for the SBI Imp ID in > > > the sbi.h file. What do you think? > > > > I'm not really sure what the advantage of doing so is. > The macro SBI_IMP_OPENSBI seems weird (I would read it as "SBI Implementation OpenSBI"). That is what it is though, so I don't see what's weird about that. > However, if we implement an enum struct for SBI_IMP_ID > (There are numerous IDs available), Ohh I know, but I didn't see the point adding those when I was only focusing on a single implementation. > the macro can be abbreviated to OpenSBI. By doing this, the conditional > checking of the implementation ID would be more readable, as shown below: > if (sbi_firmware_id != OPENSBI) I don't see that it can become that simple, it'd still need to be prefixed with SBI_ to be consistent with any other SBI related enum, and at that point adding the extra IMP_ makes little odds.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
