Hi Anup,

On 2023-11-23 4:38 AM, Anup Patel wrote:

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 4:06 AM Samuel Holland
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2023-11-17 9:38 PM, Anup Patel wrote:

quoted

The functions sbi_console_putchar() and sbi_console_getchar() are
not defined when CONFIG_RISCV_SBI_V01 is disabled so let us add
stub of these functions to avoid "#ifdef" on user side.

Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <redacted>
---
 arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
index 0892f4421bc4..66f3933c14f6 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h

@@ -271,8 +271,13 @@ struct sbiret sbi_ecall(int ext, int fid, unsigned long arg0,
                      unsigned long arg3, unsigned long arg4,
                      unsigned long arg5);

+#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_SBI_V01
 void sbi_console_putchar(int ch);
 int sbi_console_getchar(void);
+#else
+static inline void sbi_console_putchar(int ch) { }
+static inline int sbi_console_getchar(void) { return -ENOENT; }

"The SBI call returns the byte on success, or -1 for failure."

So -ENOENT is not really an appropriate value to return here.

Actually, I had -1 over here previously but based on GregKH's
suggestion, we are now returning proper Linux error code here.

Also, all users of sbi_console_getchar() onlyl expect a negative
value upon error so better to return proper Linux error code.

Alright, makes sense to me.

Regards,
Samuel