Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:38:46 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Linn Crosetto <linn@hpe.com>
Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, roy.franz@linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] arm64/efi: query Secure Boot status according to
 UEFI spec
Message-ID: <20160302133846.GH2649@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1456273509-25249-1-git-send-email-linn@hpe.com>
 <1456445895-97647-1-git-send-email-linn@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1456445895-97647-1-git-send-email-linn@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 825
Lines: 22

On Thu, 25 Feb, at 05:18:13PM, Linn Crosetto wrote:
> This series modifies the function that queries the status of UEFI Secure Boot
> in the EFI stub to match the UEFI specification, and allow the caller to
> determine if it is enabled, disabled, or in an unknown state due to an
> unexpected error from GetVariable().
> 
> v2:
> 
>  - Add return values for unexpected errors
>  - Split changes into two patches
> 
> Linn Crosetto (2):
>   arm64/efi: report unexpected errors when determining Secure Boot status
>   arm64/efi: check SetupMode when determining Secure Boot status
> 
>  drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Both of these look fine to me.

Mark, since you gave feedback on the first version, are you happy with
v2?