On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 10:57, Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 16:09, Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:57:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 15:47, Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

I am yet to figure out how asm/efi.h and linux/efi.h are included so that
we can have generic definition in linux/efi.h and x86 can undefine that
and redefine its own version.

Does that make sense ?

I appreciate the effort, but for now, let's just fix the ones we need
to fix (and the ARM one too while we're at it). PRM can only be
enabled on x86 and arm64 anyway.

True. OK then I will just update ARM version and leave loongarch as is.

Actually, this was rather straight-forward so I folded this change
into your ARM patch.

I see you have the generic version for all archs except arm64 and x86 as
we discussed earlier. Since you have even included the arm64 changes, the
PRMT enablement patches need to routed via your tree now as it depends on
the change you have in your -next.

Are you OK with that if Rafael agrees ? I can ask him on the other thread.
No further changes are needed. Let me know.

Yes, that is fine. Or I can put that patch on a stable branch by itself.

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