From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFCD53EAC84 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 15:48:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780415295; cv=none; b=MReKd+qKQ6eOq1s3xd7n8insd/rJxR9gPqF0HoOTL5BfY25rVcavcHLLXNEhGNeSp5Pp1EdOPE4Wgez5rvZYeo0Dn85IMUkkV9ddd5/DGMPsy5i2uqzFRiUttMOlG8QLX64xBNQ5UOnp8mAgwbQR33zK4MUGGQ9t9pkRL/cJ3gw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780415295; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BgofRLKgYNQvNf6DCtR7LeyNw/azK2EKH+TbjhwrmPc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ep4incYYTsfU8YgGxVTa94I9iCxCxwqjEmpabfp7iZQqnovq9OA7nfR7LwZGb++v/Hc2QMKDHGXNZgt/08UbBgIo1F5pnZtbqfoH/gP/GFDg57nWYsulsxrHanKDiBaPdsmTsNfw5UV2vrXXrCJgjIkZC/c5swjcXSr3St3GeMo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Aw/R6Bb8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Aw/R6Bb8" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79D381F00893; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 15:48:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780415294; bh=yaaHWrkz1CVZgfrqY6bPa0dRB0HAG6XClP9O/n9xu9g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Aw/R6Bb8N4oC3YLCZbbKVq6FxNdny3Vf+XMloInImnwUabwTe884CUlUN+H0CFBGF wRRPz/8sAKSy7AjJwXxVD0QXS60pq9JOgdiF+oetUw389hwUWHP8IYLkJq5KNftw7P lyj47LhNLiVo/4ZQTZG1dsteMvXxhvk4E1nHx0fuUOwPrhY71h6MvOxgHKfID1B93x sMbYhG9X9YkKSwRvBm2hgtzRKtYSBi8gZEVLaWZShZUgg1D3KvkEz1O3LypHn33Nnv KFwFvK0oB1FHe8CDBXSlsD7kaZkDLFS2SGuajPo44eXtahw/8iCG0x8HclSg6lOtl8 BWFxkAWq/qhxA== Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 16:48:11 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Seth Forshee Cc: Sebastian Ene , Sudeep Holla , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_ffa: Fall back to minimum buffer size if RXTX_MAP fails Message-ID: <20260602-defiant-perfect-bustard-cbf22e@sudeepholla> References: <20260601-b4-ffa-rxtx-map-fixes-v1-0-c071b12ae05c@nvidia.com> <20260601-b4-ffa-rxtx-map-fixes-v1-2-c071b12ae05c@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260601-b4-ffa-rxtx-map-fixes-v1-2-c071b12ae05c@nvidia.com> On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 03:45:12PM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > FFA_FEATURES only supports a maximum size value for RXTX_MAP in v1.2+. > Older implementations may still reject larger sizes, which can happen > when the minimum size is rounded up to the page size when PAGE_SIZE > > 4K. > > Fall back to the minimum size when RXTX_MAP fails with > INVALID_PARAMETERS to fix the regression on these platforms. This also > has the side effect of falling back for v1.2+ with a maximum of 0 (i.e. > no maximum), where the rounded-up value isn't expected to be rejected, > but there's no harm in retrying with a smaller size and it might even be > of benefit for a non-compliant SPMC. > Is this needed on any of your platforms ? I don't want to push a solution or fallback/workaround if there are no users for it. -- Regards, Sudeep