From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: rouven.czerwinski@linaro.org
Cc: "Jens Wiklander" <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
"Sumit Garg" <sumit.garg@kernel.org>,
"Olivia Mackall" <olivia@selenic.com>,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"Clément Léger" <clement.leger@bootlin.com>,
op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtc: optee: simplify OP-TEE context match
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:05:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202601291605277bc279f4@mail.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260126-optee-simplify-context-match-v1-3-d4104e526cb6@linaro.org>
On 26/01/2026 11:11:26+0100, Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski@linaro.org>
>
> Simplify the TEE implementor ID match by returning the boolean
> expression directly instead of going through an if/else.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c
> index 184c6d142801..2f18be3de684 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c
> @@ -541,10 +541,7 @@ static int optee_rtc_read_info(struct device *dev, struct rtc_device *rtc,
>
> static int optee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
> {
> - if (ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE)
> - return 1;
> - else
> - return 0;
> + return (ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE);
I guess the correct way to do this would be:
return !!(ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE);
But is this change actually generating better code?
Before:
static int optee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
{
if (ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE)
0: e5900000 ldr r0, [r0]
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
4: e2400001 sub r0, r0, #1
8: e16f0f10 clz r0, r0
c: e1a002a0 lsr r0, r0, #5
10: e12fff1e bx lr
After:
static int optee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
{
return !!(ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE);
0: e5900000 ldr r0, [r0]
}
4: e2400001 sub r0, r0, #1
8: e16f0f10 clz r0, r0
c: e1a002a0 lsr r0, r0, #5
10: e12fff1e bx lr
I'm in favor of keeping the current version.
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexandre Belloni via OP-TEE <op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
To: rouven.czerwinski@linaro.org
Cc: "Sumit Garg" <sumit.garg@kernel.org>,
"Olivia Mackall" <olivia@selenic.com>,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"Clément Léger" <clement.leger@bootlin.com>,
op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtc: optee: simplify OP-TEE context match
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:05:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202601291605277bc279f4@mail.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260126-optee-simplify-context-match-v1-3-d4104e526cb6@linaro.org>
On 26/01/2026 11:11:26+0100, Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski@linaro.org>
>
> Simplify the TEE implementor ID match by returning the boolean
> expression directly instead of going through an if/else.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven.czerwinski@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c
> index 184c6d142801..2f18be3de684 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-optee.c
> @@ -541,10 +541,7 @@ static int optee_rtc_read_info(struct device *dev, struct rtc_device *rtc,
>
> static int optee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
> {
> - if (ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE)
> - return 1;
> - else
> - return 0;
> + return (ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE);
I guess the correct way to do this would be:
return !!(ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE);
But is this change actually generating better code?
Before:
static int optee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
{
if (ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE)
0: e5900000 ldr r0, [r0]
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
4: e2400001 sub r0, r0, #1
8: e16f0f10 clz r0, r0
c: e1a002a0 lsr r0, r0, #5
10: e12fff1e bx lr
After:
static int optee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
{
return !!(ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE);
0: e5900000 ldr r0, [r0]
}
4: e2400001 sub r0, r0, #1
8: e16f0f10 clz r0, r0
c: e1a002a0 lsr r0, r0, #5
10: e12fff1e bx lr
I'm in favor of keeping the current version.
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-29 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-26 10:11 [PATCH 0/3] OP-TEE/OP-TEE drivers: simplify context matches Rouven Czerwinski
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay via OP-TEE
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay
2026-01-26 10:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] optee: simplify OP-TEE context match Rouven Czerwinski
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay via OP-TEE
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay
2026-02-10 5:22 ` Sumit Garg
2026-02-10 5:22 ` Sumit Garg via OP-TEE
2026-03-04 9:34 ` Jens Wiklander
2026-01-26 10:11 ` [PATCH 2/3] hwrng: optee - " Rouven Czerwinski
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay via OP-TEE
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay
2026-02-06 10:57 ` Herbert Xu
2026-02-06 10:57 ` Herbert Xu via OP-TEE
2026-01-26 10:11 ` [PATCH 3/3] rtc: optee: " Rouven Czerwinski
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay via OP-TEE
2026-01-26 10:11 ` Rouven Czerwinski via B4 Relay
2026-01-29 16:05 ` Alexandre Belloni [this message]
2026-01-29 16:05 ` Alexandre Belloni via OP-TEE
2026-01-30 15:03 ` Rouven Czerwinski
2026-01-30 15:03 ` Rouven Czerwinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202601291605277bc279f4@mail.local \
--to=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=clement.leger@bootlin.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=jens.wiklander@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olivia@selenic.com \
--cc=op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org \
--cc=rouven.czerwinski@linaro.org \
--cc=sumit.garg@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.