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 5E91739182F; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:38:05 +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=1784126286; cv=none; b=X40VSfJhzSIxfaYdUkeZCyNJBLzvYK1lvY3TiWkyRFpGzCegYJslCKI80PVOXc2qxSQoNyUPBnLa+cIqJF5U6ZCOVBkqQM/N82rLllHjmwAQ2ht9fAZ+MZNVV+nw988fOFGN0a5IBH72n5gbZse9SGVt6yEfQmlTOOj6teb4epQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784126286; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9aJAXcchJ+rfE/kpIHbVZ9K/PIeoh4HZqadIKM5TZgk=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=MbhDwAudFPDmYElkDM97cawPF4K79JCGExJvCRtpGoaynU5zh9Ui4aY5PH5b5Lu9Dl3WrNPVXxFCoIlFOMlhyEVZZqeMNmUa0eJdSXvrcHxIFD49ZERsUFhSnXjD0GDV4U4T/mvmKkGms1tyZGbXHo6nRQI8S8a5OutgjE2X/UA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Gfbsuczh; 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="Gfbsuczh" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADDF41F000E9; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:38:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784126285; bh=haHzTa+1fgT3vzs6VVQ/iPu/MW28WXGQBU/ZPKrQRtQ=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=GfbsuczhuAHAzcnmjR63XqP+D2Eq5GfXqgWE6Ep23IJNwTQDmHagAYc2LYfX+hgO2 21W4+JUxn88IoedTbAK8FyQpcT89si0pxrLf/HayUDwDQigh1TXrJVcg2GE1O/IlOh 2uzeYeRLe8TzgcE3nGZEPxjWCL8xc6RWxrwa2CtsWWsqm8Mbemf8IyrdAoFDxZEEKb Dzm8hp2/VjLyUGu5qOgF89J8HGEkS2ixIiOTVmZZJxuQM1QQLtUWZqLkqwIgrmzjPR ilV+XdlnG3g8hCsMqqREUIO8uGsvTGJlemYW4m1GDtVUgsZpCNAlyDrJS1MC1kFhXJ 1yMbuMtSV7UIw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] firmware: arm_rmm: Add SMC definitions for calling the RMM Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Steven Price" Cc: "Marc Zyngier" , "Oliver Upton" , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260715142739.80398-2-steven.price@arm.com> References: <20260715142739.80398-1-steven.price@arm.com> <20260715142739.80398-2-steven.price@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:38:04 +0000 Message-Id: <20260715143804.ADDF41F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] `struct rec_exit` contains 4 bytes of implicit compiler padding bet= ween `padding9` and `plane`. - [Low] Discrepancy between the `PROT_MAP` macro prefix and the `DATA_MAP` = comment and SMC command name. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/6] firmware: arm_rmm: Add SMC definitions for calli= ng the RMM --- commit c161f24da1669945cb4dc961f3a3c4ef452450b6 Author: Steven Price firmware: arm_rmm: Add SMC definitions for calling the RMM The RMM (Realm Management Monitor) provides functionality that can be accessed by SMC calls from the host. > diff --git a/include/linux/arm-smccc-rmi.h b/include/linux/arm-smccc-rmi.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..c965e8867518f > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/arm-smccc-rmi.h [ ... ] > + union { /* 0x600 */ > + struct { > + u16 imm; > + u16 padding9; > + u64 plane; [Severity: Low] Does this struct layout contain implicit padding? The sequence of two u16 fields followed by a u64 field forces the compiler to inject 4 bytes of padding to align the plane field to an 8-byte boundary. While deterministic on ARM64, implicit padding in ABI structures shared with firmware is usually avoided. Should an explicit 32-bit padding field be added here? > + }; > + u8 padding6[0x100]; > + }; [ ... ] > +/* RMI_RTT_DATA_MAP_FLAGS definitions */ > +#define RMI_RTT_PROT_MAP_FLAGS_OADDR_TYPE GENMASK(1, 0) > +#define RMI_RTT_PROT_MAP_FLAGS_LIST_COUNT GENMASK(15, 2) [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but there seems to be a naming discrepancy. The comment mentions RMI_RTT_DATA_MAP_FLAGS, which corresponds to the SMC_RMI_RTT_DATA_MAP command, but the macros are prefixed with RMI_RTT_PROT_MAP_FLAGS. Should these macros use the DATA_MAP prefix instead? > + > +/* S2AP Direct Encodings, used in RMI_RTT_UNPROT_MAP_FLAGS_S2AP */ > +#define RMI_S2AP_DIRECT_WRITE BIT(0) > +#define RMI_S2AP_DIRECT_READ BIT(1) > + > +#endif /* __LINUX_ARM_SMCCC_RMI_H_ */ --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260715142739.8039= 8-1-steven.price@arm.com?part=3D1