[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/4] ARM: HYP/non-sec: Make armv7_init_nonsec() usable before relocation

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>]

Hello Yuantian,

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:42:06 +0000, Yuantian Tang
<Yuantian.Tang@freescale.com> wrote:
> > >> Wouldn't it be better to declare gic_dist_base as a local variable?
> > >>It is only used  once outside function armv7_switch_nonsec(). It could
> > >>be replaced with
> > >> get_gicd_base_address() call.
> > >>
> > >I am with you. That's what I did in the first version of this patch.
> > >Patch links is at: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/391065/
> > >But Albert seems have some concerns. The attached is what we discussed.

FTR, I only had concerns with the patch subject / commit summary.
Regarding the patch itself, I just asked whether the global was not
used as some means of coordination which would have been broken by
turning it into a local, but you had checked, so that was fine.

> > >Now on the second thought, I prefer the way this patch proposed because
> > >if we define gic_dist_base as local variable, That means function
> > >get_gicd_base_address() should be usable at any time in any mode. Can
> > >we make sure of that in the future?
> > 
> > I don't strongly object introducing a new local variable. But I don't see how the
> > global variable is useful. Function get_gicd_base_address() should be available all
> > the time. It reads PERIPHBASE register, or return a macro. It hasn't changed
> > since the first patch added it in 2013. Not sure if the original author Andre
> > Przywara is available to comments.
> > 
> Thanks for your comments.
> If no one objects the original patch, I like to resubmit it.
>
> Hi Albert, what's your opinion on this?


Which 'original patch' do you mean?

If it is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/391065/ then I'm fine with
it and will apply it.
 
> Regards,
> Yuantian
> 
> > York
> > 

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.