Re: [PATCH 1/2] firmware: arm_ffa: Add FFA_FN64_MEM_RECLAIM2 function ID

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

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 <snehalreddy@google.com>

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.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260921164748.2958578-1-snehalreddy@google.com?part=1