Hi Stefano,
On 09/26/2018 12:57 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/psci.c b/xen/arch/arm/psci.c
index 941eec921b..02737e6caa 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/psci.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/psci.c
@@ -42,42 +42,53 @@ uint32_t smccc_ver;
static uint32_t psci_cpu_on_nr;
+#define PSCI_RET(res) ((int32_t)(res).a0)
+
int call_psci_cpu_on(int cpu)
{
- return call_smc(psci_cpu_on_nr, cpu_logical_map(cpu),
__pa(init_secondary), 0);
+ struct arm_smccc_res res;
+
+ arm_smccc_smc(psci_cpu_on_nr, cpu_logical_map(cpu), __pa(init_secondary),
+ &res);
+
+ return (int32_t)res.a0;
}
Can't we use PSCI_RET(res) here?
I missed that one. I will update it.
Also in general, should we care about the type mismatch int32_t vs. int
which is the return type of this function?
The only issue I could see is if sizeof(int) < sizeof(int32_t). If that
happen, then psci.c would be our least concern as we always assume int
would at least 32-bit wide.
I would prefer to keep the return of the function int and casting the
result with (int32_t). The latter is helpful to know what is the size of
the result (a0 is 64-bit).
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
