From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E906F51E42A; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 12:15:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790684162; cv=none; b=egFe6MImHvZBTK+bqXGMQOAAl3m5yjRcWr0MVFytfl7VAeyMpACHY02qRcrFSDiv1YnLlS2Y3KlGPmDL8kaIeTGZ+pNwnGzPeuVehwPt8+S/yURQ0sxVLNEMZutQ+LwRs5GoK+bAzpztBaF8l6FXkeZCb6bfcJhGZli8o44DUGg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790684162; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SzxPLnpzbm4Ir0vMlYp80TqFCuEZ1W6xvmkpxL/9kpQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Hfq5XcRfFG64G7ZB5FwrktA1kehfPr0dKdg668ZCOHC8+ZhgN2bVS1QZCkXXhujCiZm2O0WS27cgt0u3Eg0k2ZgYOytcIJtBusYGVwmN4ajTr9QHBuhnud99QcfwKz1dr43hxQizgkXFbZKX5TKnwD9nNxx6Fcy82zTB+jttCYg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=NIiT3/7h; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="NIiT3/7h" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC492F; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 05:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.12.116] (unknown [10.57.12.116]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35FE13F86F; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 05:15:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1790684157; bh=SzxPLnpzbm4Ir0vMlYp80TqFCuEZ1W6xvmkpxL/9kpQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=NIiT3/7hjkCIhjmRdAjzF7PuTM9EdvbtwDwovpFg065izKOxLv6GMvuTbWH359u2U c6uMoLkpmL6XMfvuraVDMyhsADR+UooRXj4TBe3ppiwcUz1SLMUOxGdRM7YXgVBAab LSV632zZUYtpgtMg67N5qXviT7Qlo2eNYW8rqyGw= Message-ID: <3610ef9d-6e0c-4e20-a6b9-1f11bf6031e6@arm.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2026 13:15:52 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 6/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Ensure the RMM has GPT entries for memory Content-Language: en-GB To: Catalin Marinas Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, maz@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, 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, sudeep.holla@arm.com, jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com References: <20260924135201.850038-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20260924135201.850038-7-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> From: Suzuki K Poulose In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 29/09/2026 12:01, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 02:52:00PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> +/* >> + * Make sure the area is tracked by RMM at FINE granularity. >> + * We do not support changing the tracking yet. >> + */ >> +static int rmi_verify_memory_tracking(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end) >> +{ >> + while (start < end) { >> + unsigned long ret, category, state, next; >> + >> + ret = rmi_granule_tracking_get(start, end, &category, &state, &next); >> + if (ret != RMI_SUCCESS) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + >> + if (WARN_ON(next <= start)) >> + return -ENXIO; >> + >> + if (state != RMI_TRACKING_FINE || >> + category != RMI_MEM_CATEGORY_CONVENTIONAL) { >> + /* TODO: Set granule tracking in this case */ >> + pr_err("Granule tracking for region isn't fine/conventional: %llx-%lx\n", >> + start, next); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } >> + start = next; >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * rmi_gpt_info - Query the GPT info for the given PAR. >> + * @start: Base of the physical address region >> + * @end: Top of the physical address region >> + * @out_top: Top of the physical address region for which >> + * the GPT @out_gpt_par_state is valid >> + * @out_gpt_par_state: State of the GPT covered by [start, out_top) >> + */ >> +static long rmi_gpt_info(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, >> + unsigned long *out_top, >> + unsigned long *out_gpt_par_state) >> +{ >> + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs regs = { >> + SMC_RMI_GPT_INFO, start, end, >> + }; >> + >> + rmi_smccc_invoke(®s); >> + if (regs.a0 != RMI_SUCCESS) >> + return regs.a0; >> + >> + if (out_top) >> + *out_top = regs.a1; >> + if (out_gpt_par_state) >> + *out_gpt_par_state = regs.a2; >> + >> + return RMI_SUCCESS; >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * We do not support creating L1 GPTs yet. So, make sure that >> + * all the regions are managed by the firmware. >> + */ >> +static int rmi_verify_gpt_firmware_managed(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end) >> +{ >> + unsigned long l0gpt_sz; >> + unsigned long next, par_state; >> + >> + l0gpt_sz = 1UL << (30 + FIELD_GET(RMI_FEATURE_REGISTER_1_L0GPTSZ, >> + rmi_feat_reg(1))); >> + start = ALIGN_DOWN(start, l0gpt_sz); >> + end = ALIGN(end, l0gpt_sz); >> + >> + while (start < end) { >> + long ret = rmi_gpt_info(start, end, &next, &par_state); >> + >> + if (ret != RMI_SUCCESS) >> + return -ENOMEM; > > Nit: what does -ENOMEM actually mean here? Was there any allocation? > Maybe -ENXIO is better suited, as the one below. Also, is it useful to > print something like we do further down? > > Same comment for rmi_verify_memory_tracking(). > >> + if (WARN_ON(next <= start)) >> + return -ENXIO; >> + >> + if (par_state != RMI_GPT_PAR_PLAT) { >> + pr_err("GPT for the region is not managed by firmware %llx-%lx\n", >> + start, next); >> + return -ENOMEM; > > Nit: in v18, Gavin suggested returning -ENODEV here (the hunk he > proposed). I think it makes more sense and it matches the -ENODEV in > rmi_verify_memory_tracking(). Ack, I have incorporated both suggestions. Suzuki >