From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:58:18 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv2 2/5] arm64/efi: move to generic {__,}efi_call_virt In-Reply-To: <20160421164840.GO929@arm.com> References: <1461238529-12810-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <1461238529-12810-3-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20160421164840.GO929@arm.com> Message-ID: <20160421165648.GA3078@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:48:40PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:35:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Now there's a common template for {__,}efi_call_virt, remove the > > duplicate logic from the arm64 efi code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel > > Cc: Catalin Marinas > > Cc: Leif Lindholm > > Cc: Matt Fleming > > Cc: Will Deacon > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > > Cc: linux-efi at vger.kernel.org > > Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h | 21 +++++++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h > > index 8e88a69..f4f71224 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h > > @@ -14,28 +14,21 @@ extern void efi_init(void); > > > > int efi_create_mapping(struct mm_struct *mm, efi_memory_desc_t *md); > > > > -#define efi_call_virt(f, ...) \ > > +#define arch_efi_call_virt_setup() \ > > ({ \ > > - efi_##f##_t *__f; \ > > - efi_status_t __s; \ > > - \ > > kernel_neon_begin(); \ > > efi_virtmap_load(); \ > > - __f = efi.systab->runtime->f; \ > > - __s = __f(__VA_ARGS__); \ > > - efi_virtmap_unload(); \ > > - kernel_neon_end(); \ > > - __s; \ > > }) > > > > -#define __efi_call_virt(f, ...) \ > > +#define arch_efi_call_virt(f, args...) \ > > ({ \ > > efi_##f##_t *__f; \ > > - \ > > - kernel_neon_begin(); \ > > - efi_virtmap_load(); \ > > __f = efi.systab->runtime->f; \ > > - __f(__VA_ARGS__); \ > > + __f(args); \ > > Any reason to change this to a named argument? This patch is hard enough > to review as it is, given the way the diff has been generated! That was to enforce consistency across arm/arm64/x86 for this. It seemed nicer to make them all use a named argument than it did to make them all use __VA_ARGS__, either of which was nice than each of them doing something slightly different. Sorry for the pain that evidently caused! > Either way: > > Acked-by: Will Deacon Cheers! Mark.