Re: [PATCH v14 06/44] arm64: RMI: Check for RMI support at init

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 13 May 2026 14:17:14 +0100,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> Query the RMI version number and check if it is a compatible version.
> The first two feature registers are read and exposed for future code to
> use.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> ---
> v14:
>  * This moves the basic RMI setup into the 'kernel' directory. This is
>    because RMI will be used for some features outside of KVM so should
>    be available even if KVM isn't compiled in.
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h |  3 ++
>  arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile        |  2 +-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c    |  1 +
>  arch/arm64/kernel/rmi.c           | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/rmi.c
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h
> index 04f7066894e9..9179934925c5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rmi_cmds.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
>  
>  #include <asm/rmi_smc.h>
>  
> +extern unsigned long rmm_feat_reg0;
> +extern unsigned long rmm_feat_reg1;
> +
>  struct rtt_entry {
>  	unsigned long walk_level;
>  	unsigned long desc;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> index 74b76bb70452..d68f351aae75 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ obj-y			:= debug-monitors.o entry.o irq.o fpsimd.o		\
>  			   cpufeature.o alternative.o cacheinfo.o		\
>  			   smp.o smp_spin_table.o topology.o smccc-call.o	\
>  			   syscall.o proton-pack.o idle.o patching.o pi/	\
> -			   rsi.o jump_label.o
> +			   rsi.o jump_label.o rmi.o
>  
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT)			+= sys32.o signal32.o			\
>  					   sys_compat.o
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 6d53bb15cf7b..8bdd95a8c2de 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -292,6 +292,7 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64isar3[] = {
>  static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64pfr0[] = {
>  	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV3_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>  	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV2_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_RME_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>  	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_DIT_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>  	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_AMU_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>  	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_MPAM_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/rmi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/rmi.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..99c1ccc35c11
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/rmi.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2023-2025 ARM Ltd.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/memblock.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/rmi_cmds.h>
> +
> +unsigned long rmm_feat_reg0;
> +unsigned long rmm_feat_reg1;

What is the requirement for making those globally accessible? Can't
they be made static and use an accessor that returns them? Can the
variables be made __ro_after_init?

> +
> +static int rmi_check_version(void)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> +	unsigned short version_major, version_minor;
> +	unsigned long host_version = RMI_ABI_VERSION(RMI_ABI_MAJOR_VERSION,
> +						     RMI_ABI_MINOR_VERSION);
> +	unsigned long aa64pfr0 = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);
> +
> +	/* If RME isn't supported, then RMI can't be */
> +	if (cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(aa64pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_RME_SHIFT) == 0)
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +
> +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(SMC_RMI_VERSION, host_version, &res);
> +
> +	if (res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +
> +	version_major = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MAJOR(res.a1);
> +	version_minor = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MINOR(res.a1);
> +
> +	if (res.a0 != RMI_SUCCESS) {
> +		unsigned short high_version_major, high_version_minor;
> +
> +		high_version_major = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MAJOR(res.a2);
> +		high_version_minor = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MINOR(res.a2);
> +
> +		pr_err("Unsupported RMI ABI (v%d.%d - v%d.%d) we want v%d.%d\n",
> +		       version_major, version_minor,
> +		       high_version_major, high_version_minor,
> +		       RMI_ABI_MAJOR_VERSION,
> +		       RMI_ABI_MINOR_VERSION);
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +	}
> +
> +	pr_info("RMI ABI version %d.%d\n", version_major, version_minor);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init arm64_init_rmi(void)
> +{
> +	/* Continue without realm support if we can't agree on a version */
> +	if (rmi_check_version())
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(rmi_features(0, &rmm_feat_reg0)))
> +		return 0;
> +	if (WARN_ON(rmi_features(1, &rmm_feat_reg1)))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(arm64_init_rmi);

Is there any reliance on this being executed before or after KVM's own
initialisation? If so, this should be captured.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.