Hi,
> On 8 Jan 2025, at 16:45, Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vall...@cloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed Jan 8, 2025 at 3:23 PM GMT, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>> Clang 16 reports:
>>
>> In file included from arch/arm/tee/ffa.c:72:
>> arch/arm/tee/ffa_private.h:329:17: error: 'used' attribute ignored on a
>> non-definition declaration [-Werror,-Wignored-attributes]
>> extern uint32_t __ro_after_init ffa_fw_version;
>> ^
>>
>> Remove the attribute from the header to resolve this. The attribute in
>> ffa.c is the one the matters anyway.
>>
>> Fixes: 2f9f240a5e87 ("xen/arm: ffa: Fine granular call support")
>> Signed-off-by: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebr...@amd.com>
>> ---
>> It appears the variable ffa_fw_version is only used in ffa.c. Was there
>> any rationale for exporting the symbol in 2f9f240a5e87 ("xen/arm: ffa:
>> Fine granular call support")? If not, perhaps we ought to make it static
>> again and remove the declaration in the header.
>
> The only reason I can think of is wanting to have it in the symbol table of
> the
> ELF file for some reason (livepatching?). But that's far fetched at best.
>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_private.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_private.h b/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_private.h
>> index d441c0ca5598..05368d5a88d3 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_private.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_private.h
>> @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ extern void *ffa_rx;
>> extern void *ffa_tx;
>> extern spinlock_t ffa_rx_buffer_lock;
>> extern spinlock_t ffa_tx_buffer_lock;
>> -extern uint32_t __ro_after_init ffa_fw_version;
>> +extern uint32_t ffa_fw_version;
>> extern DECLARE_BITMAP(ffa_fw_abi_supported, FFA_ABI_BITMAP_SIZE);
>>
>> bool ffa_shm_domain_destroy(struct domain *d);
>>
>> base-commit: 70f5a875becc9444a959830b10a361982c31a366
>
> IMO, it makes sense to make it static and remove this line altogether as you
> suggest. If it needs to be exported later on it can be adjusted as needed.
>
Yes in fact it was made global as there was a use case at some point but this
is not
the case anymore so in fact we can completely remove this from the header and
make
it static for now.
@stewart: are you happy to push a patch doing this instead ?
Cheers
Bertrand
> Cheers,
> Alejandro
