On Tue, 21 May 2024, Henry Wang wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On 5/21/2024 12:09 AM, Michal Orzel wrote: > > > > > Thanks. I will take the tag if you are ok with above diff (for the > > > > > case > > > > > if this series goes in later than Luca's). > > > > I would move this check to process_shm() right after "gbase = > > > > dt_read_paddr" setting. > > > > This would be the most natural placement for such a check. > > > That sounds good. Thanks! IIUC we only need to add the check for the > > > pbase != INVALID_PADDR case correct? > > Yes, but at the same time I wonder whether we should also return error if a > > user omits pbase > > for direct mapped domain. > > I think this makes sense. So I will add also a check for the case if users > omit pbase in the device tree for the direct mapped domain.
I fixed the NIT and added the ack, but as Luca's series hasn't been committed yet, I have not made this change. I'll leave it to Julien when he commits both series.
