[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aHpP7fntDQ7SMPAC@willie-the-truck>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:45:17 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: perlarsen@...gle.com
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ahomescu@...gle.com,
armellel@...gle.com, arve@...roid.com, ayrton@...gle.com,
qperret@...gle.com, sebastianene@...gle.com, qwandor@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] KVM: arm64: Bump the supported version of FF-A to
1.2
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 10:06:37PM +0000, Per Larsen via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Per Larsen <perlarsen@...gle.com>
>
> FF-A version 1.2 introduces the DIRECT_REQ2 ABI. Bump the FF-A version
> preferred by the hypervisor as a precursor to implementing the 1.2-only
> FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2 and FFA_MSG_SEND_RESP2 messaging interfaces.
>
> We must also use SMCCC 1.2 for 64-bit SMCs if hypervisor negotiated FF-A
> 1.2, so ffa_set_retval is updated and a new function to call 64-bit smcs
> using SMCCC 1.2 with fallback to SMCCC 1.1 is introduced.
>
> Update ffa_call_supported to mark FF-A 1.2 interfaces as unsupported
> lest they get forwarded.
>
> Co-developed-by: Ayrton Munoz <ayrton@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ayrton Munoz <ayrton@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Per Larsen <perlarsen@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> include/linux/arm_ffa.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
This patch needs to be split into smaller chunks as it's doing a number
of things in one go.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> index 5fd6474d96ae4b90d99796ee81bb36373219afc4..79d834120a3f3d26e17e9170c60012b60c6f5a5e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> @@ -678,6 +678,13 @@ static bool ffa_call_supported(u64 func_id)
> case FFA_NOTIFICATION_SET:
> case FFA_NOTIFICATION_GET:
> case FFA_NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET:
> + /* Optional interfaces added in FF-A 1.2 */
> + case FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2: /* Optional per 7.5.1 */
> + case FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_RESP2: /* Optional per 7.5.1 */
> + case FFA_CONSOLE_LOG: /* Optional per 13.1: not in Table 13.1 */
> + case FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET_REGS: /* Optional for virtual instances per 13.1 */
> + /* Unsupported interfaces added in FF-A 1.2 */
> + case FFA_EL3_INTR_HANDLE: /* Only valid for secure physical instances */
> return false;
> }
This could be a standalone change ^^^
>
> @@ -734,7 +741,10 @@ static int hyp_ffa_post_init(void)
> if (res.a0 != FFA_SUCCESS)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> - switch (res.a2) {
> + if ((res.a2 & GENMASK(15, 2)) != 0 || res.a3 != 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
Why are you checking bits a2[15:2] and a3? The spec says they MBZ,
so we shouldn't care about enforcing that. In fact, adding the check
probably means we'll fail if those bits get allocated in future.
> +
> + switch (res.a2 & FFA_FEAT_RXTX_MIN_SZ_MASK) {
That makes sense, and can be its own patch.
> case FFA_FEAT_RXTX_MIN_SZ_4K:
> min_rxtx_sz = SZ_4K;
> break;
> @@ -931,7 +941,7 @@ int hyp_ffa_init(void *pages)
>
> arm_smccc_1_2_smc(&(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs) {
> .a0 = FFA_VERSION,
> - .a1 = FFA_VERSION_1_1,
> + .a1 = FFA_VERSION_1_2,
>
> }, &res);
> if (res.a0 == FFA_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> return 0;
> @@ -952,10 +962,10 @@ int hyp_ffa_init(void *pages)
> if (FFA_MAJOR_VERSION(res.a0) != 1)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> - if (FFA_MINOR_VERSION(res.a0) < FFA_MINOR_VERSION(FFA_VERSION_1_1))
> + if (FFA_MINOR_VERSION(res.a0) < FFA_MINOR_VERSION(FFA_VERSION_1_2))
> hyp_ffa_version = res.a0;
> else
> - hyp_ffa_version = FFA_VERSION_1_1;
> + hyp_ffa_version = FFA_VERSION_1_2;
The move to v1.2 can also be its own patch. So you end up with three in
total.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists