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 A41624B1468; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 12:41:04 +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=1791981666; cv=none; b=qxC0kEP+0QkKzQVYA8AYex+jfoh1dgNcFng4X40NBHjGBMog/DPDypVQE4+89/95uXfIPkTsQg1XWlMvWStw2k7VCANpTMdrGDmeMaGZqx9yErCnFmfah8QcZKjYjmhBGBBQe6F+4QTeaIatEAluiMkWdossiiph6Zy+cTTiyUY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791981666; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DsC4q+4yg6eLHkPxNVJf1vPqliSRaUMAYV//mcmB3hs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=mepoXH8cWoPbQNH4P2te78b1XqAJ7wTKkrID4hUS9J5eagESjRuqGGyoMY71TLbfQeyPgjlabC4JVD/HubxEqUyShx7BzuKB5wRpTejbdzTI0l7Kva3Jfx3aB+fAVA1AeHXVGiI0hV+UNkPgzqBxB3Fl/oz2VxAj5h2/DF8VSdA= 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=ROgEgrXY; 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="ROgEgrXY" 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 55DFF153B; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 05:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.9.28] (unknown [10.57.9.28]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BA443FA32; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 05:41:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1791981663; bh=DsC4q+4yg6eLHkPxNVJf1vPqliSRaUMAYV//mcmB3hs=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=ROgEgrXYixPVhlypL/B3nQZg0NGcVidZSj5LI1vGmvHnBWnkZBR3nmYvDZqFGSXoa rdsP3QHD0SE3MVRl57iZU0wCiBlAPMEVTuQ9oaL6PFoH/0DWlnAFhwODlogUaspq8p 27yz/Hkuy71iI+sCFzo3yKRvT8q61TcwFRVNFsX8= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 13:40:58 +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 v22 02/10] firmware: arm_rmm: Check for RMI support at init Content-Language: en-GB To: Sudeep Holla , Gavin Shan 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, 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, jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com References: <20261002061507.1600269-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20261002061507.1600269-3-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <2586e689-c27d-4e4c-8c69-03e24259cb96@redhat.com> <8be050e3-8af1-4f04-902f-9bc01b209dd0@arm.com> <3fbd4739-a4eb-4428-95ae-ead22e7cf9f2@redhat.com> <799fb810-c33e-4d0e-9a70-7092c0a681ff@arm.com> <0ceda99f-0352-474b-a30a-c5e79b817c2d@redhat.com> <20261014-victorious-prompt-kelpie-cf3a87@sudeepholla> From: Suzuki K Poulose In-Reply-To: <20261014-victorious-prompt-kelpie-cf3a87@sudeepholla> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 14/10/2026 13:05, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 12:06:54PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > > [...] > >> >> Then it is RMM's problem if it doesn't check that the right level of >> SMCCC version is not implemented by the EL3. Also, where do we stop >> the checks ? e.g., We need SMCCC >= v1.3, when SVE is supported. >> And >= v1.4 if SME is supported. Shouldn't we leave this to the RMM >> to verify on init and fail the init ? I can raise this with the >> tf-RMM team. > > Fair enough for v1.3+/SME/SVE checks, but RMI interface relying on more > that 8 input registers for one or more of it's interfaces (e.g. > RSI_ATTESTATION_TOKEN_INIT, RSI_MEASUREMENT_EXTEND, ...etc) indicate > it can't work with SMCCC v1.1 or below Fyi, those are RSI interfaces (Realm Guest facing) and we could add the checks there. This series is the Host facing interface. That said I will send a fixup to add the check for v1.2 for RMI too. Thanks for the feedback, both! Cheers Suzuki > . > So IMO check for v1.2+ is completely justified here. >