From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94EF1C433DF for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 631FB206A5 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="ANQeLvkN" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 631FB206A5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=xIbBJkGT4sPh8JwqUCuVLL0OQ95HkBeiwUUqB0NT4oE=; b=ANQeLvkNV2URcW 9ZNVR1Ck/EUZL5LJE+ZLg1z9cWEQQioVBRAFxVlzSRBeYsabJ64uDZPvBkhCev9ADOwRPdkQgxeNC 5i7scwotVJVPyt8RKXnIkxo5gerY8OnJBgbkGHMkEchRnIhrluyLfVygQ+LDoWe0u8cslCUotL57D 2f3vVyzUq1wJR0sPzpvlFyaiL4ZkkhKO5AQvHsM7WUhzN8jEX8aQCykgYhrymRhd8c8Q3fg8ur8IO NYwRjHQdAEC5NtlyoO9kmypRf2MjB2EccLcHKOeBhD3ZokHzq/eVCoyesqHw96M2TqDLHq12sRy7Y NaVHfy+z6K2orSXtXNqQ==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jZErb-0003nQ-PT; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:29:31 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jZErY-0003k0-PS for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:29:30 +0000 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 3AEC51FB; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.37.8.154]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FF223F71E; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 15:29:24 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Etienne Carriere Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: fix SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED management Message-ID: <20200514142924.GC23401@bogus> References: <20200514082428.27864-1-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200514082428.27864-1-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200514_072928_871078_1E3B2058 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.91 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sudeep Holla Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:24:28AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > Fix management of argument a0 output value of arm_smccc_1_1_invoke() that > should consider only SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED as reporting an unsupported > function ID as correctly stated in the inline comment. > I agree on the comment part, but ... > Signed-off-by: Etienne Carriere > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > index 49bc4b0e8428..637ad439545f 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static int smc_send_message(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, > mutex_unlock(&scmi_info->shmem_lock); > > /* Only SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED is valid error code */ > - if (res.a0) > + if (res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; Now this will return 0 for all values other than SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED. Is that what we need ? Or do you see non-zero res.a0 for a success case ? If later, we need some fixing, otherwise it is safer to leave it as is IMO. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F963C433E0 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:29:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14102070A for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:29:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727893AbgENO33 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2020 10:29:29 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:37622 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726056AbgENO32 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2020 10:29:28 -0400 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 3AEC51FB; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.37.8.154]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FF223F71E; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 15:29:24 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Etienne Carriere Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: fix SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED management Message-ID: <20200514142924.GC23401@bogus> References: <20200514082428.27864-1-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200514082428.27864-1-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:24:28AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > Fix management of argument a0 output value of arm_smccc_1_1_invoke() that > should consider only SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED as reporting an unsupported > function ID as correctly stated in the inline comment. > I agree on the comment part, but ... > Signed-off-by: Etienne Carriere > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > index 49bc4b0e8428..637ad439545f 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c > @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static int smc_send_message(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, > mutex_unlock(&scmi_info->shmem_lock); > > /* Only SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED is valid error code */ > - if (res.a0) > + if (res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; Now this will return 0 for all values other than SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED. Is that what we need ? Or do you see non-zero res.a0 for a success case ? If later, we need some fixing, otherwise it is safer to leave it as is IMO. -- Regards, Sudeep