On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:10:43PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:06:35PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:03:29PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
index 080012a6f025..df01a8579034 100644
--- a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
+++ b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h

@@ -80,6 +80,22 @@
 
 #include <linux/linkage.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
+
+enum arm_smccc_conduit {
+	SMCCC_CONDUIT_NONE,

If this is intended to have the value 0, is it worth making that
explicit?  I can never remember whether enums start at 1 or 0 by
default...

They start at 0. I intend that checks are done explicitly against an
enum value, so I'm not sure that matters.

Not really.

It depends whether code like if (!arm_smccc_1_1_get_conduit()) { ... }
is considered sane or not.

If we don't think people should be doing this, omitting the explicit
value specifier seems fine.

My expectation was that they'd check explicitly against
SMCCC_CONDUIT_NONE, since all of the existing callers care about the
specific conduit for other reasons (e.g. patching).

I also expect to wrap this in a sbusequent patch that provides helpers:

* arm_smccc_1_1_available()
* arm_smccc_1_1_call(...)

... for the cases where we just want to make a call and don't care about
the specific conduit.

Thanks,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel