On 4 Mar 2024, at 10:17, Sumit Garg wrote:
Hi Balint,
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 14:33, Balint Dobszay balint.dobszay@arm.com wrote:
Hi Sumit,
[snip]
diff --git a/include/linux/tee_drv.h b/include/linux/tee_drv.h index 911ddf92dcee..4cf402424e71 100644 --- a/include/linux/tee_drv.h +++ b/include/linux/tee_drv.h @@ -275,6 +275,17 @@ void *tee_get_drvdata(struct tee_device *teedev); struct tee_shm *tee_shm_alloc_priv_buf(struct tee_context *ctx, size_t size); struct tee_shm *tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf(struct tee_context *ctx, size_t size);
+int tee_shm_pool_op_alloc_helper(struct tee_shm_pool *pool, struct tee_shm *shm,
size_t size, size_t align,int (*shm_register)(struct tee_context *ctx,struct tee_shm *shm,struct page **pages,size_t num_pages,unsigned long start));+void tee_shm_pool_op_free_helper(struct tee_shm_pool *pool, struct tee_shm *shm,
int (*shm_unregister)(struct tee_context *ctx,struct tee_shm *shm));These rather belong to drivers/tee/tee_private.h as we shouldn't expose them to other kernel client drivers.
As per the discussion in the other thread I'll ignore this.
Then it will have conflicts with this [1] patch. If you are fine to incorporate [1] in your series then the right place for these function declarations should be include/linux/tee_core.h.
You're right, I'll rebase my patches on this.
By incorporating your patch in my series, do you mean that I should just add it as the first patch in the series for the next version? Or keep my series as is (do the rebase of course) and just mention that it's using your patch as base?
Regards, Balint
struct tee_shm *tee_shm_register_kernel_buf(struct tee_context *ctx, void *addr, size_t length);
-- 2.34.1