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 E9B74CD4F3C for ; Tue, 19 May 2026 06:02:29 +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:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From: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=CynKzDdTOEhf6qIY8m0R3RAcsN7AysDJ4Yn/0e6qABo=; b=jWCUzBxSItUgLjanLxQn/hv+/H fBGhmz1qsD+saxJpF7ouF+kcQaAY/Pbpd9UVeMWII1wPnwxzLP3V6AIggt/p2iBNXc5nmEn1yG+Zt rZG+8JKueACguns8syT7wi0F29rqxkoWG2eCOUXOj15UZ1SXqfqJI03GXM+iTZhQKaSIiJT1k8Ceb JPD8wJtvRnbDDTaunbFJyor7kvjlomja0tDAFSekMrb7kVMO+/bXLjpPZK9jPh6wSxyTWdUT0pwGF Bf5PhjYSWwm9hQJaBJx1iRwVTVIoF0q50KYIJykciklaw1Q0LEyC2ViYDzWBhvswtWCWEdHcejC6a BYRiAszg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wPDX5-00000000Gfs-2n1P; Tue, 19 May 2026 06:02:23 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wPDX4-00000000Gfk-2RAj for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 19 May 2026 06:02:22 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418E360052; Tue, 19 May 2026 06:02:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73AC3C2BCB3; Tue, 19 May 2026 06:02:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1779170541; bh=22gkf18a8yg0K51zlDRHlTrUxxq1tyaqoQ1aURojOp8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=p0xABhC0+b/gMmHS41oCAyCaMr4Q8ic65LXFQdch2Em4bqB2mWye0pa7rHQtncifD 5kEwuJnu7Bw1f4qkiOen91eN437m2ZbtKC5ZSCRdTRRwOSAbFKKE9ZlJZl745QjQut 4o6zsp62hCKLieLc0+5b0qJcUxWZeRIB4HVjHyZUOCsjNuY7byW5KXXb2sTUZ3M/ht a41mM4IMvThbC+pJIkzDKT5sTEpCFxPjNE9/EkLONPv0ejXTCcOH5MjfJfdwITzhzE 2SSqFLCoGyvr+BbcUGWnvQABVso4Jtr4tmMldgFedmv+xJZ1FrV3dwPBfBFFqpnXpN CA98XskqU7iIw== X-Mailer: emacs 30.2 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) From: Aneesh Kumar K.V To: Steven Price , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev Cc: Steven Price , Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , James Morse , Oliver Upton , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Alexandru Elisei , Christoffer Dall , Fuad Tabba , linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Gavin Shan , Shanker Donthineni , Alper Gun , Emi Kisanuki , Vishal Annapurve , WeiLin.Chang@arm.com, Lorenzo.Pieralisi2@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 10/44] arm64: RMI: Add support for SRO In-Reply-To: <20260513131757.116630-11-steven.price@arm.com> References: <20260513131757.116630-1-steven.price@arm.com> <20260513131757.116630-11-steven.price@arm.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 11:32:11 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 Steven Price writes: > +static unsigned long donate_req_to_size(unsigned long donatereq) > +{ > + unsigned long unit_size = RMI_DONATE_SIZE(donatereq); > + > + switch (unit_size) { > + case 0: > + return PAGE_SIZE; > + case 1: > + return PMD_SIZE; > + case 2: > + return PUD_SIZE; > + case 3: > + return P4D_SIZE; > + } > + unreachable(); > +} > > + > +static void rmi_smccc_invoke(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *regs_in, > + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *regs_out) > +{ > + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs regs = *regs_in; > + unsigned long status; > + > + do { > + arm_smccc_1_2_invoke(®s, regs_out); > + status = RMI_RETURN_STATUS(regs_out->a0); > + } while (status == RMI_BUSY || status == RMI_BLOCKED); > +} > + > +int free_delegated_page(phys_addr_t phys) > +{ > + if (WARN_ON(rmi_undelegate_page(phys))) { > + /* Undelegate failed: leak the page */ > + return -EBUSY; > + } > + > + free_page((unsigned long)phys_to_virt(phys)); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int rmi_sro_ensure_capacity(struct rmi_sro_state *sro, > + unsigned long count) > +{ > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(sro->addr_count > RMI_MAX_ADDR_LIST)) > + return -EOVERFLOW; > + > + if (count > RMI_MAX_ADDR_LIST - sro->addr_count) > + return -ENOSPC; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int rmi_sro_donate_contig(struct rmi_sro_state *sro, > + unsigned long sro_handle, > + unsigned long donatereq, > + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *out_regs, > + gfp_t gfp) > +{ > + unsigned long unit_size = RMI_DONATE_SIZE(donatereq); > + unsigned long unit_size_bytes = donate_req_to_size(donatereq); > + unsigned long count = RMI_DONATE_COUNT(donatereq); > + unsigned long state = RMI_DONATE_STATE(donatereq); > + unsigned long size = unit_size_bytes * count; > + unsigned long addr_range; > Looking at above and the related code, I am wondering whether we should use u64 instead of unsigned long for everything that the specification defines as 64-bit. -aneesh