Andrew Donnellan <a...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:33 -0600, Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay wrote: >> From: Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> >> >> Any caller of rtas_call_unlocked() must provide an rtas_args >> parameter >> block distinct from the core rtas_args buffer used by the rtas_call() >> path. It's an unlikely error to make, but the potential consequences >> are grim, and it's trivial to check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> > > call_rtas_display_status() seems to do exactly this, or am I missing > something?
No you're right, the warning would be spurious in that case. May need to drop this one, or refactor rtas_call(): 4456f4524604be2558e5f6a8e0f7cc9ed17c783e Author: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> AuthorDate: Tue Nov 24 22:26:11 2015 +1100 powerpc/rtas: Use rtas_call_unlocked() in call_rtas_display_status() Although call_rtas_display_status() does actually want to use the regular RTAS locking, it doesn't want the extra logic that is in rtas_call(), so currently it open codes the logic. Instead we can use rtas_call_unlocked(), after taking the RTAS lock. aside: does anyone know if the display_status() code is worth keeping? It looks like it is used to drive the 16-character wide physical LCD I remember seeing on P4-era and older machines. Is it a vestige of non-LPAR pseries that should be dropped, or is it perhaps useful for chrp or cell?
