Hi Stefano,
On 12/06/18 00:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
/*
* Assembly code may use the variable directly, so we need to make sure
* it fits in a register.
@@ -251,19 +286,17 @@ static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct
arm_cpu_capabilities *entry)
if ( smccc_ver < SMCCC_VERSION(1, 1) )
return false;
- /*
- * The probe function return value is either negative (unsupported
- * or mitigated), positive (unaffected), or zero (requires
- * mitigation). We only need to do anything in the last case.
- */
arm_smccc_1_1_smc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FID,
ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2_FID, &res);
+
spurious change
It just belongs to the previous patch. This is due to the code
reshuffling you requested.
[...]
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h
index e628d3ff56..7fbb3dc0be 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h
@@ -31,10 +31,26 @@ CHECK_WORKAROUND_HELPER(ssbd, ARM_SSBD, CONFIG_ARM_SSBD)
#undef CHECK_WORKAROUND_HELPER
+enum ssbd_state
+{
+ ARM_SSBD_UNKNOWN,
+ ARM_SSBD_FORCE_DISABLE,
+ ARM_SSBD_RUNTIME,
+ ARM_SSBD_FORCE_ENABLE,
+ ARM_SSBD_MITIGATED,
+};
+
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SSBD
#include <asm/current.h>
+extern enum ssbd_state ssbd_state;
+
+static inline enum ssbd_state get_ssbd_state(void)
+{
+ return ssbd_state;
+}
+
DECLARE_PER_CPU(register_t, ssbd_callback_required);
static inline bool cpu_require_ssbd_mitigation(void)
@@ -49,6 +65,11 @@ static inline bool cpu_require_ssbd_mitigation(void)
return false;
}
+static inline enum ssbd_state get_sbdd_state(void)
the mistype is still present
Fixed now.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
