Messages in this thread | | | From | Jens Wiklander <> | Date | Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:30:27 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 07/17] firmware: arm_ffa: Implement the NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET interface |
| |
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:11 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 04:02:56PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > The receiver’s scheduler uses the FFA_NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET interface > > > to retrieve the list of endpoints that have pending notifications and > > > must be run. A notification could be signaled by a sender in the secure > > > world to a VM. The Hypervisor needs to determine which VM and vCPU > > > (in case a per-vCPU notification is signaled) has a pending notification > > > in this scenario. It must obtain this information through an invocation > > > of the FFA_NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET. > > > > > > Add the implementation of the NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET interface > > > and prepare to use this to handle the schedule receiver interrupt. > > > Implementation of handling notifications will be added later. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c > > > index 02eedb7bc171..dfeeb751bebe 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c > > > @@ -602,6 +602,13 @@ static int ffa_notification_bitmap_destroy(void) > > > (FIELD_PREP(RECEIVER_VCPU_MASK, (vcpu_r)) | \ > > > FIELD_PREP(RECEIVER_ID_MASK, (r))) > > > > > > +#define NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET_MORE_PEND_MASK BIT(0) > > > +#define NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET_ID_COUNT GENMASK(11, 7) > > > +#define ID_LIST_MASK_64 GENMASK(51, 12) > > > +#define ID_LIST_MASK_32 GENMASK(31, 12) > > > +#define MAX_IDS_64 20 > > > +#define MAX_IDS_32 10 > > > + > > > static int ffa_notification_bind_common(u16 dst_id, u64 bitmap, > > > u32 flags, bool is_bind) > > > { > > > @@ -673,6 +680,69 @@ static int ffa_notification_get(u32 flags, struct ffa_notify_bitmaps *notify) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static void __do_sched_recv_cb(u16 partition_id, u16 vcpu, bool is_per_vcpu) > > > +{ > > > + pr_err("Callback for partition 0x%x failed.\n", partition_id); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void ffa_notification_info_get(bool is_64b) > > > +{ > > > + int idx, list, max_ids, lists_cnt, ids_processed, ids_count[MAX_IDS_64]; > > > + ffa_value_t ret; > > > + u64 id_list; > > > + > > > + do { > > > + invoke_ffa_fn((ffa_value_t){ > > > + .a0 = FFA_FN_NATIVE(NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET), > > > + }, &ret); > > > + > > > + if (ret.a0 != FFA_FN_NATIVE(SUCCESS)) { > > > > The specification doesn't require a response using 64-bit SMCCC, it is > > valid to respond using 32-bit SMCCC too. > > > > Do you mean to say the we need to support 64b NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET > returning 32b FFA_SUCCESS ? If so do we need to assume only 32bits are > used in the result. As per the specification, > > "0xC4000061(FFA_FN64_SUCCESS): This function ID is used only if any result > register encodes a 64-bit parameter." > > My question is what that means allowing 32bit FFA_SUCCESS here?
My bad, this is the one place where a 64-bit FFA_SUCCESS is more or less required. I'll fix my side of things.
Thanks, Jens
| |