From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 C901E3DF003 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 07:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783495539; cv=none; b=QvEHaBQSXcfjqTD8XwPebDvby1+aJtYdJHvhIVcvGZ8AMhpE5UX6a2XSfTeSofojEdKPdjVhuQDTBITCsGRjQWFTGDwLlaDdgFQzDpc+5N6muXCkmeaTr264W/4u5rXt20/qHdhViF+3MA/gNHWRKXwveQu6qhlWWMynFPWsTAI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783495539; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4nt6mf/G2Qq9N6s3vxJVCWs7He26JESyuMFy3cgmBhU=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=bO4LotdR6DJEfBglbYnkFdwxN2Wp4dTRFSBLd8d/vM6B7/sI2z8qk+/ivoeZw/nxrk0gwmJyuslW0kalCnDw9Sbn2qBsL9tuYsYdnPXfiRGY+YEk4HQAaROakBc0Od3Lxyb+fsh33H1tbBn/IafAZKJDOBF7Vp3qHPOfxTPhotU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Ga5cKG8k; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Ga5cKG8k" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23F251F000E9; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 07:25:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783495523; bh=lTePsQVLCNuY7eV1LeWsl8eqhJy1jXova5fM+9N2fvo=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=Ga5cKG8kzT/0P2tFwSc+Fqe2WI8nslfGjPXylCtWq87TlAEP+nai+AfXsMMNX+n7w 3/QHeQw433EVF/HxQALmjeK7Ny2UKgRikOOmJSg4zmL+BeNLAXWNV3X5iz9E9KUFcc vB6j0DtMj1g5CPOboRGoBP/CD3EKymuCic18b05nTC5+mqPXMkU/QfLDaLYhGJVwIQ VDwLYGEpVoY7iUEWLhJouXlRe2GqYI4Nm2qWFaVSVRdeREiF1OumIVBSOPdR5kLkyN l/Blkq27wITMQkRq4SWMMxXJIF0+f3kpwhvrX7AWmGsQmJeXsMzA6PY1yq/jBXt8Wr 5B2Q3z2tJLrbg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/6] efi: Add EFI_MEMORY_ISA_{MASK,VALID} Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Sven Peter" Cc: robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260708-efi-psci-v1-3-9efb3abf0e4c@kernel.org> References: <20260708-efi-psci-v1-0-9efb3abf0e4c@kernel.org> <20260708-efi-psci-v1-3-9efb3abf0e4c@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 07:25:22 +0000 Message-Id: <20260708072523.23F251F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The newly introduced EFI_MEMORY_ISA_MASK and EFI_MEMORY_ISA_VALI= D attributes are omitted from the known attributes mask in efi_md_typeattr_= format(), breaking human-readable formatting for memory regions using these= attributes. -- --- Patch [3]: [PATCH RFC 3/6] efi: Add EFI_MEMORY_ISA_{MASK,VALID} --- commit c6357eb92aeb854ab69dbec9ea5006a518bddfd0 Author: Sven Peter efi: Add EFI_MEMORY_ISA_{MASK,VALID} This commit introduces new memory region attributes defined in UEFI 2.10 that allow mapping with ISA-specific cacheability attributes. Link: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/07_Services_Boot_Services.html#efi-b= oot-services-getmemorymap Link: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/02_Overview.html#memory-types > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h > index f3db3a18b5404..882148114068f 100644 > --- a/include/linux/efi.h > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h > @@ -128,6 +128,8 @@ typedef struct { > #define EFI_MEMORY_SP BIT_ULL(18) /* soft reserved */ > #define EFI_MEMORY_CPU_CRYPTO BIT_ULL(19) /* supports encryption */ > #define EFI_MEMORY_HOT_PLUGGABLE BIT_ULL(20) /* supports unplugging at r= untime */ > +#define EFI_MEMORY_ISA_MASK GENMASK_ULL(59, 44) /* ISA-specific attribu= tes */ > +#define EFI_MEMORY_ISA_VALID BIT_ULL(62) /* EFI_MEMORY_ISA_MASK bits ar= e valid */ [Severity: Medium] Should these new attributes be added to the known attributes whitelist in efi_md_typeattr_format() over in drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c? Because they are omitted from the inverted mask check there, if system firmware provides a memory descriptor containing these new UEFI 2.10 attributes, won't the formatter fall back to printing a raw hexadecimal string instead of human-readable attributes? drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c:efi_md_typeattr_format() { ... if (attr & ~(EFI_MEMORY_UC | EFI_MEMORY_WC | EFI_MEMORY_WT | EFI_MEMORY_WB | EFI_MEMORY_UCE | EFI_MEMORY_RO | EFI_MEMORY_WP | EFI_MEMORY_RP | EFI_MEMORY_XP | EFI_MEMORY_NV | EFI_MEMORY_SP | EFI_MEMORY_CPU_CRYPTO | EFI_MEMORY_MORE_RELIABLE | EFI_MEMORY_HOT_PLUGGABLE | EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME)) snprintf(pos, size, "|attr=3D0x%016llx]", (unsigned long long)attr); ... } > #define EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME BIT_ULL(63) /* range requires runtime mappin= g */ > =20 > #define EFI_MEMORY_DESCRIPTOR_VERSION 1 --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260708-efi-psci-v= 1-0-9efb3abf0e4c@kernel.org?part=3D3