On 10/12/2018 10:27, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:45:18PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
>> SMCCC 1.1 calls may use either HVC or SMC depending on the PSCI
>> conduit. Rather than coding this in every call site provide a macro
>> which uses the correct instruction. The macro also handles the case
>> where no PSCI conduit is configured returning a not supported error
>> in res, along with returning the conduit used for the call.
>>
>> This allow us to remove some duplicated code and will be useful later
>> when adding paravirtualized time hypervisor calls.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.pr...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/arm-smccc.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
>> index 18863d56273c..b047009e7a0a 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
>> @@ -311,5 +311,49 @@ asmlinkage void __arm_smccc_hvc(unsigned long a0,
>> unsigned long a1,
>> #define SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED -1
>> #define SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED -2
>>
>> +/* Like arm_smccc_1_1* but always returns SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED.
>> + * Used when the PSCI conduit is not defined. The empty asm statement
>> + * avoids compiler warnings about unused variables.
>> + */
>> +#define __fail_smccc_1_1(...)
>> \
>> + do { \
>> + __declare_args(__count_args(__VA_ARGS__), __VA_ARGS__); \
>> + asm ("" __constraints(__count_args(__VA_ARGS__))); \
>> + if (___res) \
>> + ___res->a0 = SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED; \
>> + } while (0)
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * arm_smccc_1_1() - make an SMCCC v1.1 compliant call
>> + *
>> + * This is a variadic macro taking one to eight source arguments, and
>> + * an optional return structure.
>> + *
>> + * @a0-a7: arguments passed in registers 0 to 7
>> + * @res: result values from registers 0 to 3
>> + *
>> + * This macro will make either an HVC call or an SMC call depending on the
>> + * current PSCI conduit. If no valid conduit is available then -1
>> + * (SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED) is returned in @res.a0 (if supplied).
>> + *
>> + * The return value also provides the conduit that was used.
>> + */
>> +#define arm_smccc_1_1(...) ({
>> \
>
> As a minor nit, could we please give call this something like
> arm_smccc_1_1_call() or arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(), to make it clear what
> action this performs?
Sure, arm_smccc_1_1_call() works for me.
> I had some patches [1] cleaning up the SMCCC API, it would be nice if we
> could pick up some of those as preparatory bits, before we spread some
> of the current design warts (e.g. SMCCC depending on PSCI definitions).
Looks like a similar approach, just extended to include
s/PSCI_CONDUIT/SMCCC_CONDUIT/ and making arm_smccc_1_1_* return res.
Would you like me to drop this (and the next) patch in favour of yours?
Thanks,
Steve
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git
> arm64/smccc-cleanup
>
>> + int method = psci_ops.conduit; \
>> + switch (method) { \
>> + case PSCI_CONDUIT_HVC: \
>> + arm_smccc_1_1_hvc(__VA_ARGS__); \
>> + break; \
>> + case PSCI_CONDUIT_SMC: \
>> + arm_smccc_1_1_smc(__VA_ARGS__); \
>> + break; \
>> + default: \
>> + __fail_smccc_1_1(__VA_ARGS__); \
>> + method = PSCI_CONDUIT_NONE; \
>> + break; \
>> + } \
>> + method; \
>> + })
>> +
>> #endif /*__ASSEMBLY__*/
>> #endif /*__LINUX_ARM_SMCCC_H*/
>> --
>> 2.19.2
>>
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
