From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.180.131]) (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 021E3516154 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:46:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.180.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790027202; cv=none; b=MG1FP9SJIEMs3plWC4Rg6m7xHxw9FGleYCF7msNYHATUVXnzwDFuX5Isb7MTJuX57l6W/oDO3lkJvcT8rVacUdv9alx7QbJLsE/CLyb8T3Vp0WHDr/m17nTy+2ZvQf2qpoUfe9fabshkWXesUnlCV2Psc4YnBqW/LUhUBE/ORYQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790027202; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QShqD0mzsgr5KsP5VmTpDyoWzdUjfsO4sL+xZPZ8Kno=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=V8cXK6IhD2EppvoDIuFXwN2+y4q/sSIQZMHfjzyxaDxASQXCkwLaekPtU4kqvYfeSuQz7wBpokPMj9AlaKN5qFjNEXKKDWtullilB9E1Jyj8a+vEDl64Q6H1eMTH+snOh9SOW1+ZLZoIIWoOoTf0lh1fv4IC8swL7tnsNRRE2eA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=oss.qualcomm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.b=EFoJNMx1; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oss.qualcomm.com header.i=@oss.qualcomm.com header.b=gZsFX//Q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.180.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.b="EFoJNMx1"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oss.qualcomm.com header.i=@oss.qualcomm.com header.b="gZsFX//Q" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279869.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 68LKelxX2741019 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:46:39 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qualcomm.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= ZfOg9XYdQ5/vxidE+9pPRR6RYjJCbLCLOIt2gCT+9Gg=; b=EFoJNMx1X6Pv4FDS tMUSGAa9LvqoGHZBedDqvdBcDA7Cvae9SnITto4f09jRtlbuekCrbMc/2MAKvf6x gy2p3mZ2bhW8HdOSvKsdo/MKLNoMpVqXD90eb3NjmicVlbPWXm3gn48rxPFjxWVd ccE3FYDFyB3GFotA+QlERyQZ16B85/XCfZXm5v3vSsXF7AER0i7zlTvSQHCun1zu nfalxcV7idp0hPZlhBnqfZke+HLmsbX2Sc7DCOy8jejO2OtTqVCkLWdLV1vBiXSp 9DeQc19R9BUJCDEQgouChdIxMP4QiqIcIk83GTs5CpiOtWouC/iXLzm7qBgeMsWJ YRLYVw== Received: from mail-pj1-f71.google.com (mail-pj1-f71.google.com [209.85.216.71]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4gu01d3fdb-1 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:46:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-pj1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-38ecc48b3c2so8352457a91.1 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:46:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oss.qualcomm.com; s=google; t=1790027198; x=1790631998; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:mime-version:organization :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=ZfOg9XYdQ5/vxidE+9pPRR6RYjJCbLCLOIt2gCT+9Gg=; b=gZsFX//QG9D6bwbjzukJJyUpL8+3eeG4XWZOeVez/SqYo+ydZPf0gJn//KwuBSrYiq OnArKanj18OJm3BJUZyqMTDldBcoBpvDSAxLqvF/9uB9YcvfK6WNL/zIOB/tOFZKzmuu /Q0JXfQboH9T/b+L+jKjupwg8rnWACVGZmJ8k6rl6xzndw+aUNJKNpq4a31TMGz+2QZ6 WrUaDs5nhUruEvQb0OivxyyYvn8ZbBYDB1CSd7RshCGjtYcaSM7pfvLhzTcOeeaRMS4g +rJ/J83jxkLS3PXNGOSYunXWUBgfUPMVAf/KPqZ3OHYiUkTk3gLtOVDS32LWPPFo73cc DPhg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1790027198; x=1790631998; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:mime-version:organization :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=ZfOg9XYdQ5/vxidE+9pPRR6RYjJCbLCLOIt2gCT+9Gg=; b=EUomaKa7ELV+11S7vb9mab0lfqITnUHBq7mlvPY8HX9KhpwIK1Ivi6sQrAEQAdI/ri jejlHCbmtI68tyUmbEfHtHosgg3ZLz3Bj2+ADd3oqJdnelrDoJZUTmDzjfxyP8epBfen UYVc+j0msI2CIbuSbx9Qn/y386sEIvOZKeCJBNmYXaW2oVFzfShur3Bne6bB2bX0VKfR hfaUYztTa2isB70mhShaAMIqtXqzZzY0iKJh5tm0k1W0BqC7xsYHst92A7SYYw4eqyVe Mla8ZeyKzNpisp9/mwmT+JVeLOObtIXueqcOrE29dE+yED8mF9vRN/qqD9wqzIjr3gGW ubbg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBy4H+JHrteCW2ix+BtlOCTXXkhcoPtrDWv1p4xS4MXPkyyZDYBLm7PzGbJjgGKuD0nbpRA9bP1upANcDJI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++kJ62a3wd/JntaEGp+d5raexMurRSByrOJAkTqHedtSk7N8iKjr /15wYd3u6ono7KKd+kWn6MoS2pjsKKk4ilk+bbgp7cBvlGfVoXXqqwEuOKQ+Uiru6OcAryRCEEF ex7n/VF1f684/CplX5RUDoYrMrKEqHkp2P+g6iEt4KIA8hz1nUIRT3HPagkCn3TBIkGI= X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou1Ksu446CxUiopEcOqVfyb5fJ4llwmF7TWxIhTb7MnvvtiaLfAGwwdcQ4zhZyr c/DkLWGy132b1XR0nxcn/s/QsmhSpzIvzBuvTLV5OJXJIOKwWFii4CYYU9mjY0FLnXS60bvnmSO ehxjr9pB+IiM27VGv3TNyrhbgqNWBwbwFidAqjo/KUE7mhsJ/b7REJ+mnoldnh2p4sTu4S0c/MN 7OqrrG3Rjx2F+m+dQ+Q2z/nf7ADcQHsC4DIrkgveNLWvVwz5yuBfOphOgq7J3azUXOXqh6Ne2c+ 79PZ+SfbM9NCQiZRUPmiwLxc/VAIsNaZxNHN/oxgx2SZ/9+ViZqhidxl6xMpbSV97Wzat3zL7BY va3i1o3smPjY5HAM0dScMHvPPNA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2dc3:b0:39e:3ce1:d22f with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-39e54d3674bmr17165987a91.16.1790027197634; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:46:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2dc3:b0:39e:3ce1:d22f with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-39e54d3674bmr17165954a91.16.1790027197022; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([50.35.44.179]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a92af1059eb24-144f0c7e0d1sm439586c88.10.2026.09.21.14.46.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:46:31 -0700 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Suzuki K Poulose Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, maz@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, steven.price@arm.com, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, gshan@redhat.com, joey.gouly@arm.com, tabba@google.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com, sdonthineni@nvidia.com, alpergun@google.com, fj0570is@fujitsu.com, WeiLin.Chang@arm.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org, enju.kohei@fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 4/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Add support for SRO Message-ID: <20260921144631.00007440@oss.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20260912083611.2513845-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20260912083611.2513845-5-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <178978126542.2352296.15676256806777454164.b4-review@b4> Organization: Qualcomm X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.51; x86_64-w64-mingw32) 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 21nKvomrg2bs8umTLYtTBjywj9Xx-G1p X-Proofpoint-Spam-Info: AW1haW4tMjYwOTIxMDMxOCBTYWx0ZWRfXxJKfMpBuGnzF 0HHWBknZ6U6INZX3U/kfq2trkuD57gPvUeEjefeOka2Z6v8B2SOk4IALljxGTlMoPllTa9OLhb1 kAt2D8lhFy5LmKfcov+Rt0DWCTZfF5I= X-Proofpoint-GUID: 21nKvomrg2bs8umTLYtTBjywj9Xx-G1p X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Ht7jiETS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6ab1a5be cx=c_pps a=UNFcQwm+pnOIJct1K4W+Mw==:117 a=aNnz9XPx1a4JIXSYt2cE/A==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=VdqzKS8jKosA:10 a=s4-Qcg_JpJYA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=u7WPNUs3qKkmUXheDGA7:22 a=_glEPmIy2e8OvE2BGh3C:22 a=yke8hGA7Qea92797WwgA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=uKXjsCUrEbL0IQVhDsJ9:22 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwOTIxMDMxOCBTYWx0ZWRfXypw8AgV/+C9Y 8N7XpkdD1CxvJP14pSBcxjR/AOL4/2yTgRMFIslVS3Cscs5gkFDMXW72Z4ogCOgV6bVgJG3dol1 XALbrKdiXlvwV2A1q3fz4hFYrjG0C1nz65gfezqIY16DKKSZrDlIv5uFtIG21JsZnBPIDpU4abP mvx1/tqydcJ0y8GC8RM59TL2vKwvckgqLOSoXdn8ymFMRUGETqXXXW/0vT8eV8F7YUGc14JZlR4 PRLtcQRy/pY7gX4EIal42oM8nYWnPfhXhZhlMde58ZjSaoMHFhPLTVm71xL082EKatZXhzbvpkM QBIA3WpmMBmjlKiTBETKIfIxq4CTrIWri4zNGh7HucuvziR9Wg5ZyUBjPHgzXVgXnYw6YAS7p2e pwUZZ/gzDu9LPMAlebntT6ctlS+4xdzGqKRc9bGbO1gJIHLQ1nJsXoiuDTIsNTvMb0IlJH/3t1L aMZd7Olv24K1U1+7cNg== X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1176,Hydra:6.1.134,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-09-21_06,2026-09-21_02,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2609040000 definitions=main-2609210318 > >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c > >> index 5b0e342ce3d5..4f9898ece754 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c > >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c > >> @@ -15,6 +15,59 @@ > >> #define RMI_FEAT_REG_COUNT 2 > >> static unsigned long rmi_feat_reg_cache[RMI_FEAT_REG_COUNT] __ro_after_init; > > > > Was there a question here you missed ? FWIW: I think inaccurate cropping only! Have been using b4 review tui (which is excellent btw!) Not sure I've gotten the hang of it fully yet. > > I have expanded this to cover all 5 RmiFeatureRegisters exposed by RMM, > and it looks something like this now, with the use of ARRAY_SIZE() to > limit accesses. ... > > >> + > >> + /* Keep just the blocks the RMM didn't use in addr_list */ > >> + for (int i = consumed_blocks; i < count; i++) > >> + sro->addr_list[addr_list_start + i - consumed_blocks] = > >> + sro->addr_list[addr_list_start + i]; > > > > Maybe memmove to make it clear you are shifting a chunk of the array > > down. This might be worth some asci art showing each step in brief. > > Anyhow, something along these lines: > > > > memmove(&sro->addr_list[addr_list_start], > > &sro->addr_list[addr_list_start + consumed_blocks], > > (count - consumed_blocks) * sizeof(*sro->addr_list)); > > > > Obviously doesn't save code, but maybe simpler to understand than > > the loop. > > > > Does the following hunk look better with the comment ? > > /* > * Keep just the blocks the RMM didn't use in addr_list. > * RMM claimed consumed_blocks entries from addr_list_start. > * Move the entries left out at the end i.e. > * [ addr_list_start + consumed_blocks, addr_list_start + found) > * to the rest of the valid entries and adjust the addr_count to > * reflect the available entries. > */ > for (int i = 0, src = addr_list_start + consumed_blocks; > i < found - consumed_blocks; i++) > sro->addr_list[addr_list_start + i] = > sro->addr_list[src + i]; > > sro->addr_count -= consumed_blocks; Good enough. Not sure there is a perfect answer for this one! > > > > >> +} > >> + > >> +static int rmi_sro_reclaim(struct rmi_sro_state *sro, > >> + unsigned long sro_handle, > >> + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *out_regs) > >> +{ > >> + unsigned long capacity; > >> + > >> + if (rmi_sro_ensure_capacity(sro, 1)) > >> + rmi_sro_free(sro); > > > > Maybe a comment on why you free the whole lot rather than a smaller > > amount to make some room. > > We don't do partial free of the list today, and having that is > unnecssarily complicating the logic/code. We are going to do a reclaim > anyways. Sure, I could add a comment. Might be useful as a breadcrumb in future but indeed not vital. That was what I was assuming was the case. > > > > > >> + > >> + capacity = RMI_MAX_ADDR_LIST - sro->addr_count; > >> + > >> + rmi_op_mem_reclaim(sro_handle, > >> + virt_to_phys(&sro->addr_list[sro->addr_count]), > >> + capacity, out_regs); > >> + > >> + /* > >> + * RMI_OP_MEM_RECLAIM always return RMI_INCOMPLETE, except when the > >> + * input parameters were invalid. > >> + */ > >> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(RMI_RETURN_STATUS(out_regs->a0) != RMI_INCOMPLETE)) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(out_regs->a1 > capacity)) > >> + out_regs->a1 = capacity; > > I guess this should never happen, but bit ugly to fixup the register > > return rather than perhaps using a local variable instead. > > We pass/get the out_regs, so local variable doesn't work, unless > I missed what you were hinting at.. Ahh. Indeed, I wasn't thinking ahead to it being visible after. > > > >> +long rmi_sro_execute(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *regs) > >> +{ > >> + bool cancelled = false; > >> + unsigned long sro_handle = regs->a1; > >> + > >> + rmi_smccc_invoke(regs); > >> + > >> + sro_handle = regs->a1; > >> + while (RMI_RETURN_STATUS(regs->a0) == RMI_INCOMPLETE) { > >> + bool can_cancel = RMI_RETURN_CAN_CANCEL(regs->a0) == RMI_OP_CAN_CANCEL; > >> + > >> + switch (RMI_RETURN_MEMREQ(regs->a0)) { > >> + case RMI_OP_MEM_REQ_NONE: > >> + rmi_op_continue(sro_handle, RMI_CONTINUE_KEEP_GOING, > >> + regs); > >> + break; > >> + default: > >> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > >> + if (!can_cancel) > >> + return regs->a0; > >> + /* If we have already cancelled, don't retry this */ > > > > Maybe expand that comment a little to say if we can get here under a > > valid sequence and if so are we guaranteed that cancel is complete > > given that is what caller will probably expect if it gets -ECANCELED. > > > > My reading of spec would suggest we can't hit this path for the > > calls that are not memory tranferring. Then again we can't hit the > > first cancel either so all bets are off. So maybe this is the > > bet we can do. Also can_cancel shouldn't be true after > > rmi_op_cancel() as I assume you can't cancel a cancel. > > Ack. This was to handle a buggy RMM (and soothing an LLM bot) Modern job titles: LLM Soother! I aggressively cropped previous email. For avoidance of doubt the rest all looked good to me. > > Thank you for the review. You are welcome. Thanks for pushing this forwards Jonathan > > Cheers > Suzuki > > > > >