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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68980CD6E57 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 15:48:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=yaaHWrkz1CVZgfrqY6bPa0dRB0HAG6XClP9O/n9xu9g=; b=IhLeXZDnoCIas9VCQ6AjGDxltR FvKgFpEek4xPlQvFKStg55/WfoUT7URQT3YpfxAUhKBT34boXBPxFf1und4oyHpFWRYcM1f7s2N3+ OJ/seCK2OYif9fFHcIoxWEsi7RBNUCYbvlpRvZfHWTFiwJ2vbF90GqWVANBgG0QVaKZ221570bj2v DtqmQKYQlGPYtW3Z3PIt6Ljwe8xqkW0+NlEdC4A3ktTC4mLzjoBMoECTJItY2Aec0iKNMVM2VRhKb yEt7q00umAHhEUQeWAowio6xCyv1NbzKbrMMzKgbe32q4FGWam000CUCxSci0aj12dhIjII9v34w7 2jD9MPpw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wURLm-0000000DMVG-2Bsz; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:48:18 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wURLk-0000000DMUk-1f9p for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:48:17 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DEB418EC; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 15:48:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79D381F00893; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 15:48:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780415294; bh=yaaHWrkz1CVZgfrqY6bPa0dRB0HAG6XClP9O/n9xu9g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Aw/R6Bb8N4oC3YLCZbbKVq6FxNdny3Vf+XMloInImnwUabwTe884CUlUN+H0CFBGF wRRPz/8sAKSy7AjJwXxVD0QXS60pq9JOgdiF+oetUw389hwUWHP8IYLkJq5KNftw7P lyj47LhNLiVo/4ZQTZG1dsteMvXxhvk4E1nHx0fuUOwPrhY71h6MvOxgHKfID1B93x sMbYhG9X9YkKSwRvBm2hgtzRKtYSBi8gZEVLaWZShZUgg1D3KvkEz1O3LypHn33Nnv KFwFvK0oB1FHe8CDBXSlsD7kaZkDLFS2SGuajPo44eXtahw/8iCG0x8HclSg6lOtl8 BWFxkAWq/qhxA== Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 16:48:11 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Seth Forshee Cc: Sebastian Ene , Sudeep Holla , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_ffa: Fall back to minimum buffer size if RXTX_MAP fails Message-ID: <20260602-defiant-perfect-bustard-cbf22e@sudeepholla> References: <20260601-b4-ffa-rxtx-map-fixes-v1-0-c071b12ae05c@nvidia.com> <20260601-b4-ffa-rxtx-map-fixes-v1-2-c071b12ae05c@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260601-b4-ffa-rxtx-map-fixes-v1-2-c071b12ae05c@nvidia.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260602_084816_466273_331B11E2 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 13.14 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 03:45:12PM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > FFA_FEATURES only supports a maximum size value for RXTX_MAP in v1.2+. > Older implementations may still reject larger sizes, which can happen > when the minimum size is rounded up to the page size when PAGE_SIZE > > 4K. > > Fall back to the minimum size when RXTX_MAP fails with > INVALID_PARAMETERS to fix the regression on these platforms. This also > has the side effect of falling back for v1.2+ with a maximum of 0 (i.e. > no maximum), where the rounded-up value isn't expected to be rejected, > but there's no harm in retrying with a smaller size and it might even be > of benefit for a non-compliant SPMC. > Is this needed on any of your platforms ? I don't want to push a solution or fallback/workaround if there are no users for it. -- Regards, Sudeep