On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 11:32:56AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 05:00:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > +#define SME_VQ_INVALID	(SME_VQ_MAX + 1)

> Does using (SME_VQ_MAX + 1) for this make something easier than if we
> used 0?

There were checks for VLs less than $THING which were causing annoyance
IIRC but it should be workable since we shouldn't offer SME to guests if
the invalid VL comes up.  I'll look again when I'm back from holiday.

> To solve all of the above, I think what we actually want to do is find
> the largest uniformly implemented VL which is smaller than the smallest
> partially implemented VL.

Yes, that's what we're going for.