[PATCHv2 2/5] arm64/efi: move to generic {__,}efi_call_virt

[Mark Rutland]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:48:40PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:35:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Now there's a common template for {__,}efi_call_virt, remove the
> > duplicate logic from the arm64 efi code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> > Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm at linaro.org>
> > Cc: Matt Fleming <matt at codeblueprint.co.uk>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: linux-efi at vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h | 21 +++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h
> > index 8e88a69..f4f71224 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h
> > @@ -14,28 +14,21 @@ extern void efi_init(void);
> >  
> >  int efi_create_mapping(struct mm_struct *mm, efi_memory_desc_t *md);
> >  
> > -#define efi_call_virt(f, ...)						\
> > +#define arch_efi_call_virt_setup()					\
> >  ({									\
> > -	efi_##f##_t *__f;						\
> > -	efi_status_t __s;						\
> > -									\
> >  	kernel_neon_begin();						\
> >  	efi_virtmap_load();						\
> > -	__f = efi.systab->runtime->f;					\
> > -	__s = __f(__VA_ARGS__);						\
> > -	efi_virtmap_unload();						\
> > -	kernel_neon_end();						\
> > -	__s;								\
> >  })
> >  
> > -#define __efi_call_virt(f, ...)						\
> > +#define arch_efi_call_virt(f, args...)					\
> >  ({									\
> >  	efi_##f##_t *__f;						\
> > -									\
> > -	kernel_neon_begin();						\
> > -	efi_virtmap_load();						\
> >  	__f = efi.systab->runtime->f;					\
> > -	__f(__VA_ARGS__);						\
> > +	__f(args);							\
> 
> Any reason to change this to a named argument? This patch is hard enough
> to review as it is, given the way the diff has been generated!

That was to enforce consistency across arm/arm64/x86 for this.

It seemed nicer to make them all use a named argument than it did to
make them all use __VA_ARGS__, either of which was nice than each of
them doing something slightly different.

Sorry for the pain that evidently caused!

> Either way:
> 
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>

Cheers!

Mark.