Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] firmware: arm_sdei: add sdei_is_present()
Kiryl Shutsemau <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.kexec,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <akOgOWIsP9HBVxp-@thinkstation> |
On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 03:47:11AM -0700, Usama Arif wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:07:15 +0100 Kiryl Shutsemau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: "Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)" <[email protected]> > > > > invoke_sdei_fn() returns -EIO when no SDEI conduit was probed, and the > > core warns ("Failed to create event ...") on any registration that hits > > that. An optional consumer that registers an event from an unconditional > > initcall would therefore make every boot on a non-SDEI system emit that > > warning for what is simply absent firmware. > > > > Expose whether SDEI firmware is present so such a consumer can skip > > registration -- and the warning -- when there is nothing to talk to. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta) <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> > > --- > > Can this be merged in patch 3 where this function is actually used? I can do it either way. Standalone commit looks good to me. But if maintainer wants, I can fold it. > > drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > include/linux/arm_sdei.h | 3 +++ > > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c > > index f39ed7ba3a38..c161cf263547 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c > > @@ -339,6 +339,16 @@ static void _ipi_unmask_cpu(void *ignored) > > sdei_unmask_local_cpu(); > > } > > > > +/* > > + * Was SDEI firmware probed and is it usable? Lets optional consumers skip > > + * registering an event -- and the warning a failed registration emits -- on > > + * systems with no SDEI. > > + */ > > +bool sdei_is_present(void) > > +{ > > + return sdei_firmware_call; > > sdei_firmware_call is a function pointer. The above is correct, but > can we make it sdei_firmware_call != NULL? I think that looks a lot better. Again, I don't care much, but checkpatch doesn't like comparison to NULL. -- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov