Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31848-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <65abfc33.df0a0220.65bf1.4e35@mx.google.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:00:32 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	"Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@oracle.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
	John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: decompressor: add option to ignore MEM ATAGs
References: <20240119201356.7903-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20240119201356.7903-3-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdaR_gtW6VmenfV5=xounqV18-kZyNprJUtLWkpgXUnkvA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdaR_gtW6VmenfV5=xounqV18-kZyNprJUtLWkpgXUnkvA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:52:33PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 9:14 PM Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_ATAG_DTB_COMPAT_IGNORE_MEM)
> > +#define do_ignore_mem 1
> > +#else
> > +#define do_ignore_mem 0
> > +#endif
> 
> Is there a reason why you can't just use:
> 
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_ATAG_DTB_COMPAT_IGNORE_MEM))
> in the code?
> 

Was following the pattern, yes I can totally do this change... Will send
a v2 with this changed.

Since the first patch has to be regression tested, is it ok to add the
Tag in v2 or I should wait that to send v2?

-- 
	Ansuel