Attention is currently required from: David Milosevic, Julius Werner.
Benjamin Doron has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78284?usp=email )
Change subject: arch/arm64: Support calling a trusted monitor ......................................................................
Patch Set 12:
(3 comments)
File src/arch/arm64/Makefile.inc:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78284/comment/246e36c2_0a530d7a : PS11, Line 121: ramstage-$(CONFIG_GENERATE_SMBIOS_TABLES) += smbios.c
Slipped into the wrong patch?
Ah, yes, thanks. Good catch. I suppose checkpatch only checks use of the `CONFIG()` macro, so that passed. And it's not set, so compilation passes.
File src/arch/arm64/include/armv8/arch/smc.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78284/comment/1cf6d541_c0ddb1c9 : PS11, Line 8: uint64_t smc_call(uint32_t function_id, uint64_t arg1, uint64_t arg2, uint64_t arg3,
nit: please be consistent with the argument names between these two functions (`function_id` vs `fun […]
Done
File src/arch/arm64/smc.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78284/comment/efc61285_01b1a842 : PS11, Line 10: inline uint64_t smc_call(uint32_t function_id, uint64_t arg1, uint64_t arg2, uint64_t arg3,
nit: I would put this implementation as `static inline` into the header file, so the compiler can el […]
It's preferable that `smc()` isn't in the header file, to ensure that callers have to go through ` assert(CONFIG_ARM64_CURRENT_EL != 3)`. Can I `static inline` `smc_call()` in the header, but still define it in the C file?
-
Benjamin Doron (Code Review)