[PATCH] ARM: efi: Simplify arch_efi_call_virt() macro by using typeof()

[Sudeep Holla]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:58:29AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 10:57, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 16:09, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:57:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 15:47, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > I am yet to figure out how asm/efi.h and linux/efi.h are included so that
> > > > > > we can have generic definition in linux/efi.h and x86 can undefine that
> > > > > > and redefine its own version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that make sense ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate the effort, but for now, let's just fix the ones we need
> > > > > to fix (and the ARM one too while we're at it). PRM can only be
> > > > > enabled on x86 and arm64 anyway.
> > > >
> > > > True. OK then I will just update ARM version and leave loongarch as is.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, this was rather straight-forward so I folded this change
> > > into your ARM patch.
> >
> > I see you have the generic version for all archs except arm64 and x86 as
> > we discussed earlier. Since you have even included the arm64 changes, the
> > PRMT enablement patches need to routed via your tree now as it depends on
> > the change you have in your -next.
> >
> > Are you OK with that if Rafael agrees ? I can ask him on the other thread.
> > No further changes are needed. Let me know.
> >
> 
> Yes, that is fine. Or I can put that patch on a stable branch by itself.

Thanks I will check with Rafael now.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep