On 7/29/26 13:33, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 29/07/2026 12:05 pm, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 7/29/26 12:13, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> May be we need the generic hw_pte_t implementation as { pte_t pte; }
>>> right away?
>>
>> Indeed, that makes sense. We just need a way for the architecture to opt-in
>> that
>> it did the conversion.
> Yeah and architecture cannot opt-in until its converted. So we should leave
> it to architecture to define hw_pte_t.
In the context of this series, we should have something like an
CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_XXX and select the definition based on that.
So we'd have a generic variant.
--
Cheers,
David
