From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout05.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout05.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.220]) (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 0E3A62C027B for ; Sat, 9 May 2026 06:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.220 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778307982; cv=none; b=Ql7KIzffTNI6rtWNyuhf3V4Ba3oDMcFPuGRQYQizxVrF0nIXHI0ujN3ZclFzdyWNqfaTnSsUW2JxMAsPF6k5njbyZj6j8gxHLokHhJ9R7A8e1kMUiGMbgrnKNmAtYPKHhhQj0HaUefMr513pyOj0puRrfFhydWlIzXbrt2DdpGc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778307982; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KsR5BUpJxoIEqZec3ccCQGmyt21AYfHy8iYW0KzL3P8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=MbZ1Hqehwv9w1khMmLLPXtPBo98cTwdvLePM/veMf6bi1ZWLscqsTuSYieNCceajQd32PW5hn/nwClEdVF1iq7Z5q2+MxqlluDvGg62ZVxZF1YiFodmcWc+AHseN9Fd2HnVmrWugWZJKEb56ccAVuvZWh81jMA5sTiERSWv8xBA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b=JfZ0wHNS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.220 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b="JfZ0wHNS" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=h-partners.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=222u0TR8ykJbpjdx6ftJWd94M2nP9gtMYgy4JYnm4iE=; b=JfZ0wHNSutxQ4JXr3jqeJbrODDWkeMm7ZePO6+yJqKQYpo3eFuXkDfXFqSv2+HjDpuAudj1qu zyt4T4VgBgcndXxA5jnE3dbLNiRwE65h8PxE/Cn+sYxypdqJQzchZhXAtEazCtNtETPotzAidas vtiiQrfFMcX83IhLd8yW4ZE= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.197]) by canpmsgout05.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4gCG636VYjz12LDB; Sat, 9 May 2026 14:19:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.222]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79F1F40577; Sat, 9 May 2026 14:26:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.179.37] (10.174.179.37) by kwepemf100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Sat, 9 May 2026 14:26:14 +0800 Message-ID: <41ffffa8-d02d-31c7-5f2b-f212dbca0f60@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 9 May 2026 14:26:13 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] arm_mpam: Update architecture version check for MPAM MSC Content-Language: en-US To: Ben Horgan , James Morse , , CC: , , , , , , , , , References: <20260508162341.3762549-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20260508162341.3762549-5-james.morse@arm.com> From: Zeng Heng In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.238) To kwepemf100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.222) Hi all, On 2026/5/9 0:35, Ben Horgan wrote: > Hi James, > > On 5/8/26 17:23, James Morse wrote: >> From: Zeng Heng >> >> In addition to updating the CPU MPAM version check, the MPAM MSC version >> check also need to be updated. mpam_msc_check_aidr() is added to check >> the MSC AIDR register, ensuring that both the major and minor version >> numbers fall within the supported range of the MPAM architecture version. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zeng Heng >> [ morse: changed mpam_msc_check_aidr() to accept versions like v1.2 ] >> Signed-off-by: James Morse >> --- >> drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c >> index 916d8fd45ed5..1771e9712ca2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c >> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c >> @@ -224,6 +224,24 @@ static inline void _mpam_write_monsel_reg(struct mpam_msc *msc, u16 reg, u32 val >> >> #define mpam_write_monsel_reg(msc, reg, val) _mpam_write_monsel_reg(msc, MSMON_##reg, val) >> >> +static bool mpam_msc_check_aidr(struct mpam_msc *msc) >> +{ >> + u32 aidr = __mpam_read_reg(msc, MPAMF_AIDR); >> + u32 major = FIELD_GET(MPAMF_AIDR_ARCH_MAJOR_REV, aidr); >> + u32 minor = FIELD_GET(MPAMF_AIDR_ARCH_MINOR_REV, aidr); >> + >> + /* >> + * v0.0 and >v2.x aren't supported, but anything else should be backward >> + * compatible to v0.1 or v1.0. >> + */ >> + if (!major && !minor) >> + return false; >> + if (major > 1) >> + return false; Would it make sense to introduce a new macro that defines the maximum supported major version? ~~~ #define MPAM_ARCH_MAJOR_VERSION_MAX 0x1 if (major > MPAM_ARCH_MAJOR_VERSION_MAX) return false; ~~~ Best regards, Zeng Heng >> + >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> static u64 mpam_msc_read_idr(struct mpam_msc *msc) >> { >> u64 idr_high = 0, idr_low; >> @@ -951,9 +969,8 @@ static int mpam_msc_hw_probe(struct mpam_msc *msc) >> >> lockdep_assert_held(&msc->probe_lock); >> >> - idr = __mpam_read_reg(msc, MPAMF_AIDR); >> - if ((idr & MPAMF_AIDR_ARCH_MAJOR_REV) != MPAM_ARCHITECTURE_V1) { > > nit: MPAM_ARCHITECTURE_V1 is now unused. > > Reviewed-by: Ben Horgan >