[RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: add SMCCC cache invalidation backend for memregion users

[RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: add SMCCC cache invalidation backend for memregion users

[Srirangan Madhavan]

This series adds an arm64 backend for memregion cache invalidation users
based on the Arm SMCCC cache clean+invalidate interface.

Per DEN0028, this interface targets systems where a Normal Cacheable
memory region can be modified in ways that are not handled by usual PE
coherency mechanisms, and where VA-based CMOs may be too slow or
insufficient for large ranges and/or system-cache implementations.

Representative use cases include device-backed memory state transitions
where stale CPU/system cache lines must be invalidated reliably (for
example secure erase, reset/offline flows, and dynamic memory
reconfiguration).

Patch 1 introduces the Arm SMCCC cache clean/invalidate function IDs and
transient return codes needed by callers [1].

Patch 2 adds an arm64 cache maintenance provider that:
- discovers SMCCC support and attributes at init time
- registers with the generic cache coherency framework used by
  cpu_cache_invalidate_memregion()
- handles transient BUSY/RATE_LIMITED responses with bounded retries
- coalesces waiters when firmware reports a global operation type

This patch set does not add a software fallback path; when firmware does
not implement the SMCCC cache maintenance interface, the provider is not
registered and existing behavior is preserved.

Reference:
[1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0028/latest

Srirangan Madhavan (2):
  arm64: smccc: add cache clean/invalidate IDs and return codes
  arm64: mm: add SMCCC-backed cache invalidate provider

 MAINTAINERS                     |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/Makefile          |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c     | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/arm-smccc.h       |  17 ++-
 tools/include/linux/arm-smccc.h |  17 ++-
 5 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c


base-commit: 3b3bea6d4b9c162f9e555905d96b8c1da67ecd5b
-- 
2.43.0

[RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: smccc: add cache clean/invalidate IDs and return codes

[Srirangan Madhavan]

Define SMCCC Arch function IDs for CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION and its ATTRIBUTES
call, and add RATE_LIMITED/BUSY return codes from DEN0028 for callers that
need transient error handling.

Signed-off-by: Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com>
---
 include/linux/arm-smccc.h       | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 tools/include/linux/arm-smccc.h | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
index 50b47eba7d01..cca9adbcc433 100644
--- a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
+++ b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
@@ -105,6 +105,18 @@
 			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,				\
 			   0, 0x3fff)
 
+#define ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION				\
+	ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH,			\
+			   0x5)
+
+#define ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION_ATTRIBUTES			\
+	ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH,			\
+			   0x6)
+
 #define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID				\
 	ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,				\
 			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,				\
@@ -294,13 +306,14 @@
 			   0x53)
 
 /*
- * Return codes defined in ARM DEN 0070A
- * ARM DEN 0070A is now merged/consolidated into ARM DEN 0028 C
+ * Return codes defined by Arm SMCCC (DEN0028).
  */
 #define SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS			0
 #define SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED			-1
 #define SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED			-2
 #define SMCCC_RET_INVALID_PARAMETER		-3
+#define SMCCC_RET_RATE_LIMITED			-4
+#define SMCCC_RET_BUSY				-5
 
 #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
 
diff --git a/tools/include/linux/arm-smccc.h b/tools/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
index 63ce9bebccd3..65fd4630e739 100644
--- a/tools/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
+++ b/tools/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
@@ -96,6 +96,18 @@
 			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,				\
 			   0, 0x3fff)
 
+#define ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION				\
+	ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH,			\
+			   0x5)
+
+#define ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION_ATTRIBUTES			\
+	ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_64,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH,			\
+			   0x6)
+
 #define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID				\
 	ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,				\
 			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,				\
@@ -182,12 +194,13 @@
 			   0x53)
 
 /*
- * Return codes defined in ARM DEN 0070A
- * ARM DEN 0070A is now merged/consolidated into ARM DEN 0028 C
+ * Return codes defined by Arm SMCCC (DEN0028).
  */
 #define SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS			0
 #define SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED			-1
 #define SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED			-2
 #define SMCCC_RET_INVALID_PARAMETER		-3
+#define SMCCC_RET_RATE_LIMITED			-4
+#define SMCCC_RET_BUSY				-5
 
 #endif /*__LINUX_ARM_SMCCC_H*/
-- 
2.43.0

[RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: add SMCCC-backed cache invalidate provider

[Srirangan Madhavan]

Add an arm64 cache maintenance backend that discovers SMCCC cache
clean+invalidate support, queries attributes, handles transient BUSY and
RATE_LIMITED responses with bounded retries, and registers with the generic
cache coherency framework.

Signed-off-by: Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com>
---
 MAINTAINERS                 |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/Makefile      |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 2fb1c75afd16..33c35f8e6e40 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -25383,6 +25383,7 @@ M:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
 S:	Maintained
 T:	git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/
 F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/
+F:	arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
 F:	drivers/cache
 F:	include/linux/cache_coherency.h
 F:	lib/cache_maint.c
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
index c26489cf96cd..b247dc5dfd45 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TRANS_TABLE)	+= trans_pgd-asm.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL)	+= physaddr.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64_MTE)		+= mteswap.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)		+= gcs.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CPU_CACHE_INVALIDATE_MEMREGION) += cache_maint.o
 KASAN_SANITIZE_physaddr.o	+= n
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_KASAN)		+= kasan_init.o
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c b/arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..ea7dd30d5dfa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2026 NVIDIA Corporation
+ *
+ * Arm64 cache maintenance provider using SMCCC cache clean+invalidate calls.
+ */
+
+#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
+#include <linux/cache_coherency.h>
+#include <linux/cleanup.h>
+#include <linux/delay.h>
+#include <linux/errno.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/mutex.h>
+#include <linux/nmi.h>
+
+#define SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_RETRIES		5
+#define SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_DELAY_US	20000
+
+/* DEN0028 v1.7: bit[0] == 1 means implementation flushes all caches globally */
+#define SMCCC_CACHE_ATTR_GLOBAL_OP	BIT(0)
+
+struct arm64_smccc_cache {
+	/* Must be first member */
+	struct cache_coherency_ops_inst cci;
+	struct mutex lock; /* Serializes SMCCC cache maintenance calls. */
+	u32 latency_us;
+	u32 rate_limit;
+	bool global_op;
+	u64 global_flush_gen;
+};
+
+static struct arm64_smccc_cache *arm64_smccc_cache;
+
+static int smccc_cache_status_to_errno(s32 status)
+{
+	switch (status) {
+	case SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS:
+		return 0;
+	case SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED:
+	case SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED:
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+	case SMCCC_RET_INVALID_PARAMETER:
+		return -EINVAL;
+	case SMCCC_RET_RATE_LIMITED:
+		return -EAGAIN;
+	case SMCCC_RET_BUSY:
+		return -EBUSY;
+	default:
+		return -EIO;
+	}
+}
+
+static int smccc_cache_delay_us(const struct arm64_smccc_cache *cache)
+{
+	u64 delay_us = 0;
+
+	if (cache->rate_limit)
+		delay_us = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(USEC_PER_SEC, cache->rate_limit);
+
+	if (cache->latency_us)
+		delay_us = max_t(u64, delay_us, cache->latency_us);
+
+	if (!delay_us)
+		delay_us = 1000;
+
+	return min_t(u64, delay_us, SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_DELAY_US);
+}
+
+static int arm64_smccc_cache_wbinv(struct cache_coherency_ops_inst *cci,
+				   struct cc_inval_params *invp)
+{
+	struct arm64_smccc_cache *cache =
+		container_of(cci, struct arm64_smccc_cache, cci);
+	struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
+	int delay_us = smccc_cache_delay_us(cache);
+	u64 gen = 0;
+	s32 status;
+	int ret;
+	int i;
+
+	if (!invp->size)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (cache->global_op)
+		gen = READ_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen);
+
+	guard(mutex)(&cache->lock);
+
+	/*
+	 * If firmware reports a global operation type, a successful operation
+	 * covers every request that was already waiting behind it. Skip if the
+	 * generation advanced while this request was waiting to enter the
+	 * serialized firmware call path.
+	 */
+	if (cache->global_op && gen != READ_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen))
+		return 0;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_RETRIES; i++) {
+		/* Long firmware operations can trigger watchdog checks. */
+		touch_nmi_watchdog();
+
+		arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION,
+				     invp->addr, invp->size, 0UL, &res);
+		status = (s32)res.a0;
+		ret = smccc_cache_status_to_errno(status);
+		if (!ret) {
+			if (cache->global_op) {
+				WRITE_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen,
+					   cache->global_flush_gen + 1);
+			}
+			return 0;
+		}
+
+		if (ret != -EBUSY && ret != -EAGAIN)
+			return ret;
+
+		usleep_range(delay_us, delay_us + 100);
+	}
+
+	return -EBUSY;
+}
+
+static const struct cache_coherency_ops arm64_smccc_cache_ops = {
+	.wbinv = arm64_smccc_cache_wbinv,
+};
+
+static int __init arm64_smccc_cache_init(void)
+{
+	struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
+	s32 status;
+	int ret;
+
+	if (arm_smccc_get_version() < ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_1)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
+	if (arm_smccc_1_1_get_conduit() == SMCCC_CONDUIT_NONE)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
+	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
+			     ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION, &res);
+	status = (s32)res.a0;
+	if (status < 0)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
+	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
+			     ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION_ATTRIBUTES, &res);
+	status = (s32)res.a0;
+	if (status < 0)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
+	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION_ATTRIBUTES, &res);
+	status = (s32)res.a0;
+	if (status)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
+	arm64_smccc_cache =
+		cache_coherency_ops_instance_alloc(&arm64_smccc_cache_ops,
+						   struct arm64_smccc_cache,
+						   cci);
+	if (!arm64_smccc_cache)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	mutex_init(&arm64_smccc_cache->lock);
+	arm64_smccc_cache->latency_us = lower_32_bits(res.a2);
+	arm64_smccc_cache->rate_limit = lower_32_bits(res.a3);
+	arm64_smccc_cache->global_op = !!(res.a1 & SMCCC_CACHE_ATTR_GLOBAL_OP);
+
+	ret = cache_coherency_ops_instance_register(&arm64_smccc_cache->cci);
+	if (ret) {
+		cache_coherency_ops_instance_put(&arm64_smccc_cache->cci);
+		arm64_smccc_cache = NULL;
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	pr_info("SMCCC cache clean+invalidate provider registered\n");
+	return 0;
+}
+arch_initcall(arm64_smccc_cache_init);
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: add SMCCC-backed cache invalidate provider

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 21 May 2026 07:30:47 +0000
Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com> wrote:

> Add an arm64 cache maintenance backend that discovers SMCCC cache
> clean+invalidate support, queries attributes, handles transient BUSY and
> RATE_LIMITED responses with bounded retries, and registers with the generic
> cache coherency framework.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com>
Hi Srirangan,

Other than the file location and Kconfig option comments, everything else
is really trivial. + some musings about maybe being worth more clever
fusing of ops in the future if it turns out to be useful.

Thanks,

Jonathan


> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                 |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/mm/Makefile      |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

File location wise, this is a driver for a subsystem, be it one closely
coupled to arm.  Arm maintainers, do you want it in there or in drivers/cache ?
My personal preference is always to keep drivers with subsystems but I don't
care that much.

>  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 2fb1c75afd16..33c35f8e6e40 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -25383,6 +25383,7 @@ M:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
>  S:	Maintained
>  T:	git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/
>  F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/
> +F:	arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c

I wonder if this should just have a separate maintainers entry? 
We did that for the hisi driver.

If not maybe add yourself as at least a Reviewer so that you get +CC'd
on relevant changes.

Conor, what do you think makes sense here.
 
>  F:	drivers/cache
>  F:	include/linux/cache_coherency.h
>  F:	lib/cache_maint.c
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> index c26489cf96cd..b247dc5dfd45 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TRANS_TABLE)	+= trans_pgd-asm.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL)	+= physaddr.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64_MTE)		+= mteswap.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)		+= gcs.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CPU_CACHE_INVALIDATE_MEMREGION) += cache_maint.o

I think this should have a separate CONFIG because it is only one option
for how to do it on arm64.  The Hisi driver being the other one already
upstream.  That will be easier if this is in drivers/cache as can go
in the existing menu.



>  KASAN_SANITIZE_physaddr.o	+= n
>  
>  obj-$(CONFIG_KASAN)		+= kasan_init.o
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c b/arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..ea7dd30d5dfa
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2026 NVIDIA Corporation
> + *
> + * Arm64 cache maintenance provider using SMCCC cache clean+invalidate calls.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> +#include <linux/cache_coherency.h>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/nmi.h>
> +
> +#define SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_RETRIES		5
> +#define SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_DELAY_US	20000
> +
> +/* DEN0028 v1.7: bit[0] == 1 means implementation flushes all caches globally */
> +#define SMCCC_CACHE_ATTR_GLOBAL_OP	BIT(0)
> +
> +struct arm64_smccc_cache {
> +	/* Must be first member */
> +	struct cache_coherency_ops_inst cci;
> +	struct mutex lock; /* Serializes SMCCC cache maintenance calls. */
> +	u32 latency_us;
> +	u32 rate_limit;
> +	bool global_op;
> +	u64 global_flush_gen;
> +};
> +
> +static struct arm64_smccc_cache *arm64_smccc_cache;

Whilst it is harmless, why do we need the global?  I don't think anything outside
of init() ever uses it.  Given there is no exit() anyway, might as well just leak
the pointer.

> +
> +static int smccc_cache_status_to_errno(s32 status)
> +{
> +	switch (status) {
> +	case SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS:
> +		return 0;
> +	case SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED:
> +	case SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED:

I'm not seeing this in the list of possible errors and
I'm far from sure what it would mean in this case if we got it!
Maybe it would indicate that the cache was known not dirty for
some reason. I'd left default deal with this one probably.


> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	case SMCCC_RET_INVALID_PARAMETER:
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	case SMCCC_RET_RATE_LIMITED:
> +		return -EAGAIN;
> +	case SMCCC_RET_BUSY:
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	default:
> +		return -EIO;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static int smccc_cache_delay_us(const struct arm64_smccc_cache *cache)
> +{
> +	u64 delay_us = 0;
> +
> +	if (cache->rate_limit)
> +		delay_us = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(USEC_PER_SEC, cache->rate_limit);
> +
> +	if (cache->latency_us)
> +		delay_us = max_t(u64, delay_us, cache->latency_us);

max() should be fine here I think.

> +
> +	if (!delay_us)
> +		delay_us = 1000;

Why?  Needs a comment I think.

> +
> +	return min_t(u64, delay_us, SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_DELAY_US);

The type forcing needed?  I might be missing why min() isn't fine here.
Doesn't seem to be in the list in the minmax.h docs for when you can't
just use min().

> +}
> +
> +static int arm64_smccc_cache_wbinv(struct cache_coherency_ops_inst *cci,
> +				   struct cc_inval_params *invp)
> +{
> +	struct arm64_smccc_cache *cache =
> +		container_of(cci, struct arm64_smccc_cache, cci);
> +	struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
> +	int delay_us = smccc_cache_delay_us(cache);
> +	u64 gen = 0;
> +	s32 status;
> +	int ret;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	if (!invp->size)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (cache->global_op)
> +		gen = READ_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen);
> +
> +	guard(mutex)(&cache->lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If firmware reports a global operation type, a successful operation
> +	 * covers every request that was already waiting behind it. Skip if the
> +	 * generation advanced while this request was waiting to enter the
> +	 * serialized firmware call path.

Perhaps call out that the serialization is on the lock. I read this as
there being another level of serialization going on and got confused ;)

Can see there might be further improvements to the non global case
using same principle you have here. I guess leave those until we have
any info on whether they are useful.

> +	 */
> +	if (cache->global_op && gen != READ_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_RETRIES; i++) {

Can drag the int i in here, maybe make it unsigned too.
	for (unsigned int i = 0; i <...
This is becoming widely accepted in kernel code these days.

> +		/* Long firmware operations can trigger watchdog checks. */
> +		touch_nmi_watchdog();
> +
> +		arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION,
> +				     invp->addr, invp->size, 0UL, &res);
> +		status = (s32)res.a0;
> +		ret = smccc_cache_status_to_errno(status);
Given status isn't used for anything else - tiny bit neater perhaps as
		ret = smccc_cache_status_to_errno((s32)res.a0);

> +		if (!ret) {
> +			if (cache->global_op) {
> +				WRITE_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen,
> +					   cache->global_flush_gen + 1);
> +			}
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (ret != -EBUSY && ret != -EAGAIN)
> +			return ret;
> +
> +		usleep_range(delay_us, delay_us + 100);

fsleep() for this sort of thing in modern code.

> +	}
> +
> +	return -EBUSY;
> +}

> +
> +static int __init arm64_smccc_cache_init(void)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
> +	s32 status;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (arm_smccc_get_version() < ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_1)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	if (arm_smccc_1_1_get_conduit() == SMCCC_CONDUIT_NONE)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
> +			     ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION, &res);
> +	status = (s32)res.a0;
> +	if (status < 0)
> +		return -ENODEV;

Maybe there is convention for this, but feels a bit odd to return -ENODEV
for a feature check on a 'device' we are talking to.  Maybe -EOPNOTSUPP?
Anyhow, that's a question for SMCCC folk.   The only error that could
be returned is NOT_SUPPORTED and you do that above for the returns from
actual calls.
> +
> +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
> +			     ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION_ATTRIBUTES, &res);
> +	status = (s32)res.a0;
> +	if (status < 0)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION_ATTRIBUTES, &res);
> +	status = (s32)res.a0;
> +	if (status)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	arm64_smccc_cache =
> +		cache_coherency_ops_instance_alloc(&arm64_smccc_cache_ops,
> +						   struct arm64_smccc_cache,
> +						   cci);

I'd go long on that just for readability but not important.

> +	if (!arm64_smccc_cache)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	mutex_init(&arm64_smccc_cache->lock);
> +	arm64_smccc_cache->latency_us = lower_32_bits(res.a2);
> +	arm64_smccc_cache->rate_limit = lower_32_bits(res.a3);
> +	arm64_smccc_cache->global_op = !!(res.a1 & SMCCC_CACHE_ATTR_GLOBAL_OP);
> +
> +	ret = cache_coherency_ops_instance_register(&arm64_smccc_cache->cci);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		cache_coherency_ops_instance_put(&arm64_smccc_cache->cci);
> +		arm64_smccc_cache = NULL;
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	pr_info("SMCCC cache clean+invalidate provider registered\n")

Trivial: blank line here.  Just helps the error path stand out vs the
print.



> +	return 0;
> +}
> +arch_initcall(arm64_smccc_cache_init);

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: add SMCCC-backed cache invalidate provider

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2725 bytes --]

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:18:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2026 07:30:47 +0000
> Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> > Add an arm64 cache maintenance backend that discovers SMCCC cache
> > clean+invalidate support, queries attributes, handles transient BUSY and
> > RATE_LIMITED responses with bounded retries, and registers with the generic
> > cache coherency framework.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com>
> Hi Srirangan,
> 
> Other than the file location and Kconfig option comments, everything else
> is really trivial. + some musings about maybe being worth more clever
> fusing of ops in the future if it turns out to be useful.
> 
> > ---
> >  MAINTAINERS                 |   1 +
> >  arch/arm64/mm/Makefile      |   1 +
> >  arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> File location wise, this is a driver for a subsystem, be it one closely
> coupled to arm.  Arm maintainers, do you want it in there or in drivers/cache ?
> My personal preference is always to keep drivers with subsystems but I don't
> care that much.

At the risk of stepping on Will's/Catalin's toes, I'll butt in here..

If this was on riscv, using an ecall into sbi firmware, I'd be asking
for it to be put in drivers/cache. The mechanism for requesting the
ops is arch-specific, but the actual execution of it is not, right?
The actual execution is going to depend on the device-specific
firmware that the smc is made to. That puts it in the same boat as
clk-scmi to me, but I'm not really familiar with how these things break
down on arm64 to be sure.

> >  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 2fb1c75afd16..33c35f8e6e40 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -25383,6 +25383,7 @@ M:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> >  S:	Maintained
> >  T:	git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/
> >  F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/
> > +F:	arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> 
> I wonder if this should just have a separate maintainers entry? 
> We did that for the hisi driver.
> 
> If not maybe add yourself as at least a Reviewer so that you get +CC'd
> on relevant changes.
> 
> Conor, what do you think makes sense here.

I think it is very weird to have an arch/arm64/mm file in this entry,
implying that I would be applying patches for it, which I do not
consider to be appropriate. If it gets moved to drivers/cache, then it
I think a standalone maintainers entry for the driver is a good idea.

Cheers,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: add SMCCC-backed cache invalidate provider

[Catalin Marinas]

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:18:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2026 07:30:47 +0000
> Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >  MAINTAINERS                 |   1 +
> >  arch/arm64/mm/Makefile      |   1 +
> >  arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> File location wise, this is a driver for a subsystem, be it one closely
> coupled to arm.  Arm maintainers, do you want it in there or in drivers/cache ?
> My personal preference is always to keep drivers with subsystems but I don't
> care that much.

Yes, it makes more sense to keep it under drivers/cache/. We have many
other users of the SMCCC interface under drivers/.

> 
> >  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 2fb1c75afd16..33c35f8e6e40 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -25383,6 +25383,7 @@ M:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> >  S:	Maintained
> >  T:	git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/
> >  F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cache/
> > +F:	arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> 
> I wonder if this should just have a separate maintainers entry? 
> We did that for the hisi driver.

Not needed if the code is moved to drivers/cache/.

> > +struct arm64_smccc_cache {
> > +	/* Must be first member */
> > +	struct cache_coherency_ops_inst cci;
> > +	struct mutex lock; /* Serializes SMCCC cache maintenance calls. */
> > +	u32 latency_us;
> > +	u32 rate_limit;
> > +	bool global_op;
> > +	u64 global_flush_gen;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct arm64_smccc_cache *arm64_smccc_cache;

Nit: if these are all static, does it still make sense to use the arm64_
prefix throughout this file?

-- 
Catalin

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: add SMCCC-backed cache invalidate provider

[Dan Williams (nvidia)]

Srirangan Madhavan wrote:
> Add an arm64 cache maintenance backend that discovers SMCCC cache
> clean+invalidate support, queries attributes, handles transient BUSY and
> RATE_LIMITED responses with bounded retries, and registers with the generic
> cache coherency framework.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                 |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/mm/Makefile      |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
[..]
> +static int arm64_smccc_cache_wbinv(struct cache_coherency_ops_inst *cci,
> +				   struct cc_inval_params *invp)
> +{
> +	struct arm64_smccc_cache *cache =
> +		container_of(cci, struct arm64_smccc_cache, cci);
> +	struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
> +	int delay_us = smccc_cache_delay_us(cache);
> +	u64 gen = 0;
> +	s32 status;
> +	int ret;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	if (!invp->size)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (cache->global_op)
> +		gen = READ_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen);
> +
> +	guard(mutex)(&cache->lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If firmware reports a global operation type, a successful operation
> +	 * covers every request that was already waiting behind it. Skip if the
> +	 * generation advanced while this request was waiting to enter the
> +	 * serialized firmware call path.
> +	 */
> +	if (cache->global_op && gen != READ_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen))
> +		return 0;

Hmm, this looks like it could under flush which is worse than over
flushing. The ordering is:

CPU0			CPU1
<dirty>
flush_gen==0
lock
flush_gen==0
flush			<dirty>	
flush_gen++		flush_gen==0	
			lock
			flush_gen==1
			skip

I.e. if CPU1 is racing dirtying while CPU0 is still flushing, then there
is a window for CPU1 to read the updated flush_gen and skip when it
needs to follow on with a new flush cycle. So this either needs a more
sophisticated queue / batch system to track which requests might get
satisfied while waiting for a turn, or just drop the optimization until
it is clear it causes a problem in practice.

I think dropping the optimization is practical for now.

> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < SMCCC_CACHE_MAX_RETRIES; i++) {
> +		/* Long firmware operations can trigger watchdog checks. */
> +		touch_nmi_watchdog();
> +
> +		arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_CLEAN_INV_MEMREGION,
> +				     invp->addr, invp->size, 0UL, &res);
> +		status = (s32)res.a0;
> +		ret = smccc_cache_status_to_errno(status);
> +		if (!ret) {
> +			if (cache->global_op) {
> +				WRITE_ONCE(cache->global_flush_gen,
> +					   cache->global_flush_gen + 1);
> +			}
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (ret != -EBUSY && ret != -EAGAIN)
> +			return ret;

I notice that cxl_region_invalidate_memregion() only expects failures to
find a flush capability, not failures to execute a flush.

Just a note to circle back to this concern.

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: add SMCCC cache invalidation backend for memregion users

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 21 May 2026 07:30:45 +0000
Srirangan Madhavan <smadhavan@nvidia.com> wrote:

> This series adds an arm64 backend for memregion cache invalidation users
> based on the Arm SMCCC cache clean+invalidate interface.
> 
> Per DEN0028, this interface targets systems where a Normal Cacheable
> memory region can be modified in ways that are not handled by usual PE
> coherency mechanisms, and where VA-based CMOs may be too slow or
> insufficient for large ranges and/or system-cache implementations.
> 
> Representative use cases include device-backed memory state transitions
> where stale CPU/system cache lines must be invalidated reliably (for
> example secure erase, reset/offline flows, and dynamic memory
> reconfiguration).
> 
Hi Srirangan,

Great to see this moving forwards. I was wondering when it would
surface upstream :)

Usual thing for an RFC is to have some reference to why it is an RFC.
I'm not immediately spotting any open questions or dependencies to
stop this going upstream now (if review of actual code goes well).

So why RFC?  Is the spec still in beta?

> Patch 1 introduces the Arm SMCCC cache clean/invalidate function IDs and
> transient return codes needed by callers [1].
> 
> Patch 2 adds an arm64 cache maintenance provider that:
> - discovers SMCCC support and attributes at init time
> - registers with the generic cache coherency framework used by
>   cpu_cache_invalidate_memregion()
> - handles transient BUSY/RATE_LIMITED responses with bounded retries
> - coalesces waiters when firmware reports a global operation type
> 
> This patch set does not add a software fallback path; when firmware does
> not implement the SMCCC cache maintenance interface, the provider is not
> registered and existing behavior is preserved.

By which you mean it kicks out an error? This kind of hints there
might be a software fallback (assuming no other implementation has
registered). In many cases there isn't a safe software solution.

Jonathan

> 
> Reference:
> [1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0028/latest
> 
> Srirangan Madhavan (2):
>   arm64: smccc: add cache clean/invalidate IDs and return codes
>   arm64: mm: add SMCCC-backed cache invalidate provider
> 
>  MAINTAINERS                     |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/mm/Makefile          |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c     | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/arm-smccc.h       |  17 ++-
>  tools/include/linux/arm-smccc.h |  17 ++-
>  5 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/mm/cache_maint.c
> 
> 
> base-commit: 3b3bea6d4b9c162f9e555905d96b8c1da67ecd5b