[PATCH v14 10/44] arm64: RMI: Add support for SRO

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com> writes:

> +static unsigned long donate_req_to_size(unsigned long donatereq)
> +{
> +	unsigned long unit_size = RMI_DONATE_SIZE(donatereq);
> +
> +	switch (unit_size) {
> +	case 0:
> +		return PAGE_SIZE;
> +	case 1:
> +		return PMD_SIZE;
> +	case 2:
> +		return PUD_SIZE;
> +	case 3:
> +		return P4D_SIZE;
> +	}
> +	unreachable();
> +}
>
> +
> +static void rmi_smccc_invoke(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *regs_in,
> +			     struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *regs_out)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs regs = *regs_in;
> +	unsigned long status;
> +
> +	do {
> +		arm_smccc_1_2_invoke(&regs, regs_out);
> +		status = RMI_RETURN_STATUS(regs_out->a0);
> +	} while (status == RMI_BUSY || status == RMI_BLOCKED);
> +}
> +
> +int free_delegated_page(phys_addr_t phys)
> +{
> +	if (WARN_ON(rmi_undelegate_page(phys))) {
> +		/* Undelegate failed: leak the page */
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
> +	free_page((unsigned long)phys_to_virt(phys));
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rmi_sro_ensure_capacity(struct rmi_sro_state *sro,
> +				   unsigned long count)
> +{
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(sro->addr_count > RMI_MAX_ADDR_LIST))
> +		return -EOVERFLOW;
> +
> +	if (count > RMI_MAX_ADDR_LIST - sro->addr_count)
> +		return -ENOSPC;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rmi_sro_donate_contig(struct rmi_sro_state *sro,
> +				 unsigned long sro_handle,
> +				 unsigned long donatereq,
> +				 struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *out_regs,
> +				 gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> +	unsigned long unit_size = RMI_DONATE_SIZE(donatereq);
> +	unsigned long unit_size_bytes = donate_req_to_size(donatereq);
> +	unsigned long count = RMI_DONATE_COUNT(donatereq);
> +	unsigned long state = RMI_DONATE_STATE(donatereq);
> +	unsigned long size = unit_size_bytes * count;
> +	unsigned long addr_range;
>

Looking at above and the related code, I am wondering whether we should
use u64 instead of unsigned long for everything that the specification
defines as 64-bit.

-aneesh