From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sinmsgout03.his.huawei.com (sinmsgout03.his.huawei.com [119.8.177.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B673298987; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 14:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=119.8.177.38 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753884968; cv=none; b=XX8UxA4wFPp4VcIF2Oi2aBuV3e48F+B5xbm30eJyCVfjlXkfGHEE1/8M1q05NdhsCpQQYBC+bU0AagHxKwQB2NdQ2pnFzaRZ90b9aTwcUpno1v/ghgUfi6oRFqsN0aTQoXodBeUAGOjlh4zFO/9hUXQZsSK/VSd3wrGm7kz9sWI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753884968; c=relaxed/simple; bh=K43qhxaAdtNeV1ZP+j6U+AZtBVqJFukvQhALAL0IjCc=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bEFecwaKBApfDlhZ++9gK8nTvOwT9vWw/urgtMW237jAy8Gh5KkC1QPH/jlHturpPxpc949REDUald2Mi2myFY7temdGqXU6bF51l6VY0ACEP7Add1aAedUUCzBxMlNOjYSu+KqzHvUoQSNYPFBDKjMkgKZ6hQ033SKGDYv44j8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=B86QY11L; arc=none smtp.client-ip=119.8.177.38 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="B86QY11L" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=GF2CxYi5yb3a70XI+8fst4Jr9PexGPUW9uwcHIZeyKs=; b=B86QY11Ll0CWDjh37ScdG2D4bBhCesFlrFL4ZGu/OPYTIIALeXJyB8sx22pXS2r2DmZoTXEAs ITO1if+D+ZbiC8WP50wImt1B4uMLMGb/zMs5OylkTxTTESPM4xdIuNGUSYbOeQzVISLAThKUGRh ZKlwZVd5bW5tB6Cas3KNCLg= Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.146.36]) by sinmsgout03.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4bsZ395X6gzN04T; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:14:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4bsZ2g2dRYz6L5QL; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:14:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 492F51402F4; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:15:59 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:15:58 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:15:56 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" CC: , , , , , , Samuel Ortiz , Xu Yilun , Jason Gunthorpe , "Suzuki K Poulose" , Steven Price , Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , Oliver Upton Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 22/38] coco: host: arm64: Stop and destroy virtual device Message-ID: <20250730151556.00006855@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20250728135216.48084-23-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org> References: <20250728135216.48084-1-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org> <20250728135216.48084-23-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.219) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 19:21:59 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" wrote: > Add support for vdev_stop and vdev_destroy. > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) Really trivial comments. > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h | 21 ++++++++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_smc.h | 3 +- > drivers/virt/coco/arm-cca-host/arm-cca.c | 10 ++++ > drivers/virt/coco/arm-cca-host/rmm-da.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > drivers/virt/coco/arm-cca-host/rmm-da.h | 2 + > 5 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h > index 25197f47a0a9..eb4f67eb6b01 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h > @@ -609,4 +609,25 @@ static inline unsigned long rmi_vdev_get_state(unsigned long vdev_phys, unsigned > return res.a0; > } > > +static inline unsigned long rmi_vdev_stop(unsigned long vdev_phys) > +{ > + struct arm_smccc_res res; > + > + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(SMC_RMI_VDEV_STOP, vdev_phys, &res); > + > + return res.a0; > +} > + > +static inline unsigned long rmi_vdev_destroy(unsigned long rd, > + unsigned long pdev_phys, > + unsigned long vdev_phys) > +{ > + struct arm_smccc_res res; > + > + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(SMC_RMI_VDEV_DESTROY, rd, pdev_phys, vdev_phys, &res); > + > + return res.a0; > +} > + One is enough. > + > #endif /* __ASM_RMI_CMDS_H */ > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_smc.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_smc.h > index 127dd0938604..c6e16ab608e1 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_smc.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_smc.h > @@ -55,8 +55,9 @@ > #define SMC_RMI_PDEV_STOP SMC_RMI_CALL(0x017c) > #define SMC_RMI_VDEV_COMMUNICATE SMC_RMI_CALL(0x0186) > #define SMC_RMI_VDEV_CREATE SMC_RMI_CALL(0x0187) > +#define SMC_RMI_VDEV_DESTROY SMC_RMI_CALL(0x0188) > #define SMC_RMI_VDEV_GET_STATE SMC_RMI_CALL(0x0189) > - There have been a few of these. Check v2 carefully to make sure no more sneak in. > +#define SMC_RMI_VDEV_STOP SMC_RMI_CALL(0x018A) > > #define RMI_ABI_MAJOR_VERSION 1 > #define RMI_ABI_MINOR_VERSION 0 > static void cca_tsm_remove(void *tsm_core) > diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/arm-cca-host/rmm-da.c b/drivers/virt/coco/arm-cca-host/rmm-da.c > index 8635f361bbe8..53072610fa67 100644 > --- a/drivers/virt/coco/arm-cca-host/rmm-da.c > +++ b/drivers/virt/coco/arm-cca-host/rmm-da.c > +void rme_unbind_vdev(struct realm *realm, struct pci_dev *pdev, struct pci_dev *pf0_dev) > +{ > + int ret; > + phys_addr_t rmm_pdev_phys; > + phys_addr_t rmm_vdev_phys; > + struct cca_host_dsc_pf0 *dsc_pf0; > + struct cca_host_tdi *host_tdi; > + phys_addr_t rd_phys = virt_to_phys(realm->rd); > + > + host_tdi = container_of(pdev->tsm->tdi, struct cca_host_tdi, tdi); > + rmm_vdev_phys = virt_to_phys(host_tdi->rmm_vdev); > + > + dsc_pf0 = to_cca_dsc_pf0(pf0_dev); > + rmm_pdev_phys = virt_to_phys(dsc_pf0->rmm_pdev); > + /* Request stopping the VDEV */ > + ret = rmi_vdev_stop(rmm_vdev_phys); > + if (ret) { > + pr_err("failed to stop vdev (%d)\n", ret); > + return; > + } > + > + schedule_vdev_unbind(pdev); > + ret = rmi_vdev_destroy(rd_phys, rmm_pdev_phys, rmm_vdev_phys); > + if (ret) { > + pr_err("failed to destroy vdev (%d)\n", ret); > + return; No point in returning here. Maybe fine to keep this if more code is coming after this in future patches. > + } > +}