Hello Yuantian, On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:24:10 +0000, Yuantian Tang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:42 PM > > To: Tang Yuantian-B29983 > > Cc: Sun York-R58495; [email protected]; Jin Zhengxiong-R64188 > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: HYP/non-sec: Make armv7_init_nonsec() usable > > before relocation > > > > Hello Yuantian, > > > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:42:06 +0000, Yuantian Tang > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Wouldn't it be better to declare gic_dist_base as a local variable? > > > > >>It is only used once outside function armv7_switch_nonsec(). It > > > > >>could be replaced with > > > > >> get_gicd_base_address() call. > > > > >> > > > > >I am with you. That's what I did in the first version of this patch. > > > > >Patch links is at: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/391065/ > > > > >But Albert seems have some concerns. The attached is what we discussed. > > > > FTR, I only had concerns with the patch subject / commit summary. > > Regarding the patch itself, I just asked whether the global was not used as > > some > > means of coordination which would have been broken by turning it into a > > local, > > but you had checked, so that was fine. > > > > > > >Now on the second thought, I prefer the way this patch proposed > > > > >because if we define gic_dist_base as local variable, That means > > > > >function > > > > >get_gicd_base_address() should be usable at any time in any mode. > > > > >Can we make sure of that in the future? > > > > > > > > I don't strongly object introducing a new local variable. But I > > > > don't see how the global variable is useful. Function > > > > get_gicd_base_address() should be available all the time. It reads > > > > PERIPHBASE register, or return a macro. It hasn't changed since the > > > > first patch added it in 2013. Not sure if the original author Andre > > > > Przywara is > > available to comments. > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > If no one objects the original patch, I like to resubmit it. > > > > > > Hi Albert, what's your opinion on this? > > > > > > Which 'original patch' do you mean? > > > > If it is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/391065/ then I'm fine with it > > and will > > apply it. > > > Yes, it is. > But I marked it as superseded because, as you suggested, this patch is resent > as part of "deep sleep" patch set. > I will send deep sleep patch set v2 to address TOM's concerns. You can apply > them all together.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. > Thanks, > Yuantian Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
