Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] powerpc/powernv: Add OPAL API interface to access secure variable

[Lakshmi Ramasubramanian]

On 10/24/19 5:47 PM, Nayna Jain wrote:


diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h 
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h
index 378e3997845a..c1f25a760eb1 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h
@@ -211,7 +211,10 @@
  #define OPAL_MPIPL_UPDATE                     173
  #define OPAL_MPIPL_REGISTER_TAG                       174
  #define OPAL_MPIPL_QUERY_TAG                  175
-#define OPAL_LAST                              175
+#define OPAL_SECVAR_GET                                176
+#define OPAL_SECVAR_GET_NEXT                   177
+#define OPAL_SECVAR_ENQUEUE_UPDATE             178
+#define OPAL_LAST                              178

Adjust indentation in the above #defines.

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h
index a0cf8fba4d12..9986ac34b8e2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h
@@ -298,6 +298,13 @@ int opal_sensor_group_clear(u32 group_hndl, int token);
  int opal_sensor_group_enable(u32 group_hndl, int token, bool enable);
  int opal_nx_coproc_init(uint32_t chip_id, uint32_t ct);
  
+int opal_secvar_get(const char *key, uint64_t key_len, u8 *data,
+                   uint64_t *data_size);
+int opal_secvar_get_next(const char *key, uint64_t *key_len,
+                        uint64_t key_buf_size);
+int opal_secvar_enqueue_update(const char *key, uint64_t key_len, u8 *data,
+                              uint64_t data_size);
+
Fix alignment of the parameters in the 2nd line.
Same comment in a few other files in this change set.


+
+static int opal_get_variable(const char *key, uint64_t ksize,
+                            u8 *data, uint64_t *dsize)
+{
+       int rc;
+
+       if (!key || !dsize)
+               return -EINVAL;
+
+       *dsize = cpu_to_be64(*dsize);
+
+       rc = opal_secvar_get(key, ksize, data, dsize);
+
+       *dsize = be64_to_cpu(*dsize);

Is it ok to update dsize even if return code (rc) from opal_secvar_get 
is an error? Just wanted to confirm.

+
+       *keylen = cpu_to_be64(*keylen);
+
+       rc = opal_secvar_get_next(key, keylen, keybufsize);
+
+       *keylen = be64_to_cpu(*keylen);
Same comment as above.

+
+       set_secvar_ops(&opal_secvar_ops);
Does this set function return status?

+
+       return 0;
+}