Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

Hi, > On 1 Apr 2025, at 16:22, Orzel, Michal wrote: > > > > On 01/04/2025 14:57, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> >> >> Hi Michal, >> >>> On 1 Apr 2025, at 11:09, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> >>> There's no benefit in having process_shm_chosen() next to process_shm(). >>> The former is just a helper

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

Hi Michal, > On 1 Apr 2025, at 18:42, Orzel, Michal wrote: > > > > On 01/04/2025 17:53, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> >> >> Hi Michal, >> >>> On 1 Apr 2025, at 17:21, Orzel, Michal wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01/04/2025 16:49, Bertrand Marquis wrote: Hi, > On 1 Apr

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

Hi Michal, > On 1 Apr 2025, at 10:09, Michal Orzel wrote: > > There's no benefit in having process_shm_chosen() next to process_shm(). > The former is just a helper to pass "/chosen" node to the latter for > hwdom case. Drop process_shm_chosen() and instead use process_shm() > passing NULL as no

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

On 02/04/2025 08:18, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > >> On 1 Apr 2025, at 18:42, Orzel, Michal wrote: >> >> >> >> On 01/04/2025 17:53, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Michal, >>> On 1 Apr 2025, at 17:21, Orzel, Michal wrote: On 01/04/2025 16:49, Be

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

On 01/04/2025 17:53, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > >> On 1 Apr 2025, at 17:21, Orzel, Michal wrote: >> >> >> >> On 01/04/2025 16:49, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> On 1 Apr 2025, at 16:22, Orzel, Michal wrote: On 01/04/2025 14:57, Bertrand

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

Hi Michal, > On 1 Apr 2025, at 17:21, Orzel, Michal wrote: > > > > On 01/04/2025 16:49, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >>> On 1 Apr 2025, at 16:22, Orzel, Michal wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01/04/2025 14:57, Bertrand Marquis wrote: Hi Michal, > On 1 Apr

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

On 01/04/2025 16:49, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > > > Hi, > >> On 1 Apr 2025, at 16:22, Orzel, Michal wrote: >> >> >> >> On 01/04/2025 14:57, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Michal, >>> On 1 Apr 2025, at 11:09, Michal Orzel wrote: There's no benefit in having process_shm_

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

On 01/04/2025 14:57, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > >> On 1 Apr 2025, at 11:09, Michal Orzel wrote: >> >> There's no benefit in having process_shm_chosen() next to process_shm(). >> The former is just a helper to pass "/chosen" node to the latter for >> hwdom case. Drop process_s

Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()

Hi Michal, > On 1 Apr 2025, at 11:09, Michal Orzel wrote: > > There's no benefit in having process_shm_chosen() next to process_shm(). > The former is just a helper to pass "/chosen" node to the latter for > hwdom case. Drop process_shm_chosen() and instead use process_shm() > passing NULL as no