From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 5A7A549E127 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:58:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790009924; cv=none; b=NsMDj3fEWorE9oV/oFThwYIbcQ7wGaJnuMpYRQ0XgpTOz4cipXJeAc4Hq1OrdzTtWvIxbtcwtvbe5ugE8u8E6O10I0ALYewYUA6F/G2q0glIURgx/ODSphnEtGrrAHQpTS7Pf+wMRQ/Xez7wnPPBGaw79eOzMnsZnhTCqeUfXic= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790009924; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0lILdtK/tx1bWXvDhjGxTI2itN4v8y7CRofldmPdtbw=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=cl2INEt5CXLzceSir2J6jTnsqpTWpC+dR8FgeHwcGnD8cv0TvxLmE3B5gVtdf1jYrTUACi5f4SLrRQk6IBXVrI7PRKuALx9QWKeqBeq7rx29px1V4mAhfWOKt7WppVB+G4EruB+M5V+Jh8iaXzSqIO4JhpykPMhIhZRB3GLE41M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gEli3nrr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="gEli3nrr" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93EE21F000FF; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:58:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790009921; bh=Ks8VroNyKEAtna6IVB+BVDyk5Oxibs+RhZvXkvuH+sc=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=gEli3nrrkLEmJLGWHBL2ZlOtiggDK9gQ4A5/RvfQ1FfpyYmEQiTb4YJWVmO0JJSmG At7H8G/m78UU27r0+wG1uWncquC0lmHCPCDS2LboGktGATp+XvNIGyuNDyVOoVv8gr u9pCv8SFfTnMjKGUupgtK24M3UUEqBbfoUeoO1zN6gPukI095kH0gkbR6cX3VH3Hjy kDjfjnhe8m3pwjZdW5CQlzIgSMLumNmPZM5NdmtWDAl8bMPCs91Pcl2zF00VOuaGj8 SWbZJsZpF7KooPP5XbsQsgyML/9B7cgyZmcK9HyzFe84BkB39n/0XQVduq7GJOiJ0g zTpoaP8FGj07A== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_ffa: Add FFA_FN64_MEM_RECLAIM2 function ID Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Snehal Koukuntla" Cc: "Oliver Upton" , "Marc Zyngier" , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev In-Reply-To: <20260921164748.2958578-2-snehalreddy@google.com> References: <20260921164748.2958578-1-snehalreddy@google.com> <20260921164748.2958578-2-snehalreddy@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:58:41 +0000 Message-Id: <20260921165841.93EE21F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] arm_ffa: missing 32-bit counterpart for FFA_FN64_MEM_RECLAIM2 -- commit b51b8a72f11f56713926464f6a895ddb89b963d1 Author: Snehal Koukuntla firmware: arm_ffa: Add FFA_FN64_MEM_RECLAIM2 function ID This commit introduces the FFA_FN64_MEM_RECLAIM2 function ID in arm_ffa.h to support the FFA_MEM_RECLAIM2 ABI introduced in FF-A v1.3 ALP5. This ABI allows an owner to reclaim exclusive access to pages without requiring intermediate transaction state maintenance. Link: https://support.arm.com/documentation/den0140/j > diff --git a/include/linux/arm_ffa.h b/include/linux/arm_ffa.h > index e71d83ee0aef3..c78cfd72832a7 100644 > --- a/include/linux/arm_ffa.h > +++ b/include/linux/arm_ffa.h > @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ > #define FFA_EL3_INTR_HANDLE FFA_SMC_32(0x8C) > #define FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2 FFA_SMC_64(0x8D) > #define FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_RESP2 FFA_SMC_64(0x8E) > +#define FFA_FN64_MEM_RECLAIM2 FFA_SMC_64(0x91) [Severity: Low] Does the missing 32-bit counterpart for FFA_FN64_MEM_RECLAIM2 break FFA_FN_NATIVE() compatibility on 32-bit architectures? Every other FFA_FN64_ prefix in the header has a 32-bit counterpart. If FFA_FN_NATIVE(MEM_RECLAIM2) is ever used on a 32-bit build, it will evaluate to FFA_MEM_RECLAIM2 due to the architecture-conditional logic, which does not exist here, and would cause a compilation failure. For 64-bit exclusive ABIs like FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2, the convention is to omit the FN64_ prefix entirely. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260921164748.2958= 578-1-snehalreddy@google.com?part=3D1