Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: Pass only the required device probe arguments
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 10:39:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fa110c56-3faa-4819-bb94-0d82935c4ac5@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq5aecdwcqsg.fsf@kernel.org>

On 11/10/2026 14:25, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Aneesh
>>
>> On 10/10/2026 11:02, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
>>> The device probe passes zeroes for all seven argument registers to
>>> arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(). On ARM32 Thumb-2, this binds an input to r7 and
>>> GCC 8.5 reports "r7 cannot be used in asm here".
>>>
>>> The current smccc_devices entries need at most one argument after the
>>> function ID: TRNG_VERSION has none and RSI_ABI_VERSION takes a requested
>>> version. Pass zero for that argument and omit the unused arguments,
>>> avoiding the r7 constraint. Check argument requirements when adding new
>>> probe functions to smccc_devices.
>>
>> Is it safer to use x1-x3 to 0 as they could be the results that we
>> get back from SMCCC v1.0 onwards ?
>>
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow. Passing additional zero arguments only
> initializes the input registers; it should not affect how return values
> are handled. arm_smccc_1_1_invoke() already declares x0-x3 as outputs.
> Since these probe functions require no inputs in x2 or x3 and we only
> inspect x0 on return, why do we need to initialize them to zero?

Agree, I meant, passing 0s for x0-x3 future proofs the new calls.
We know that x0-x3 could get overwritten by these calls, and is
safe to be zero'd on a call.

But agree, for the existing users just x1 is enough.

Either way,

Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>


Cheers
Suzuki

> 
> 
> -aneesh



  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-12  9:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-10 10:02 [PATCH] firmware: smccc: Pass only the required device probe arguments Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-10-11  9:45 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2026-10-11 13:25   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-10-12  9:39     ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2026-10-12 11:09       ` Catalin Marinas
2026-10-12  8:55 ` Sudeep Holla

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fa110c56-3faa-4819-bb94-0d82935c4ac5@arm.com \
    --to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=steven.price@arm.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox