On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 04:16:09PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 15:39, Sudeep Holla sudeep.holla@arm.com wrote:
There is a requirement to make memory APIs independent of the ffa_device. One of the use-case is to have a common memory driver that manages the memory for all the ffa_devices. That commom memory driver won't be a
s/commom/common/
ffa_driver or won't have any ffa_device associated with it. So having these memory APIs accessible without a ffa_device is needed and should be possible as most of these are handled by the partition manager(SPM or hypervisor).
Drop the ffa_device argument to the memory APIs and make them ffa_device independent.
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla sudeep.holla@arm.com
drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c | 6 ++---- drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c | 2 +- include/linux/arm_ffa.h | 6 ++---- 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c index 5f02b670e964..5c8484b05c50 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c @@ -640,8 +640,7 @@ static int ffa_sync_send_receive(struct ffa_device *dev, dev->mode_32bit, data); }
-static int -ffa_memory_share(struct ffa_device *dev, struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args) +static int ffa_memory_share(struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args) { if (drv_info->mem_ops_native) return ffa_memory_ops(FFA_FN_NATIVE(MEM_SHARE), args); @@ -649,8 +648,7 @@ ffa_memory_share(struct ffa_device *dev, struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args) return ffa_memory_ops(FFA_MEM_SHARE, args); }
-static int -ffa_memory_lend(struct ffa_device *dev, struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args) +static int ffa_memory_lend(struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args) { /* Note that upon a successful MEM_LEND request the caller * must ensure that the memory region specified is not accessed diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c b/drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c index 4c3b5d0008dd..7ec0a2f9a63b 100644 --- a/drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ static int optee_ffa_shm_register(struct tee_context *ctx, struct tee_shm *shm, if (rc) return rc; args.sg = sgt.sgl;
rc = ffa_ops->memory_share(ffa_dev, &args);
rc = ffa_ops->memory_share(&args); sg_free_table(&sgt); if (rc) return rc;diff --git a/include/linux/arm_ffa.h b/include/linux/arm_ffa.h index 556f50f27fb1..eafab07c9f58 100644 --- a/include/linux/arm_ffa.h +++ b/include/linux/arm_ffa.h @@ -262,10 +262,8 @@ struct ffa_dev_ops { int (*sync_send_receive)(struct ffa_device *dev, struct ffa_send_direct_data *data); int (*memory_reclaim)(u64 g_handle, u32 flags);
int (*memory_share)(struct ffa_device *dev,struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args);int (*memory_lend)(struct ffa_device *dev,struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args);
int (*memory_share)(struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args);int (*memory_lend)(struct ffa_mem_ops_args *args);};
Since these are included under "struct ffa_dev_ops", wouldn't it be better to rename the struct (ffa_ops?) as well?
Makes sense, I just avoided churn. But now I think there is some churn anyways, so I am happy to rename.