[PATCH v19 1/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Add SMC definitions for calling the RMM
Suzuki K Poulose
suzuki.poulose at arm.com
Thu Sep 24 15:49:18 PDT 2026
On 24/09/2026 18:05, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com> writes:
>
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Note many of these fields are smaller than u64 but all fields have u64
>> + * alignment, so use u64 to ensure correct alignment.
>> + */
>> +struct rmm_config {
>> + union { /* 0x0 */
>> + struct {
>> + u64 tracking_region_size;
>> + u64 rmi_granule_size;
>> + };
>> + u8 sizer[SZ_4K];
>> + };
>> +};
>> +
>> +static_assert(sizeof(struct rmm_config) == SZ_4K);
...
>> +struct realm_params {
>> + union { /* 0x0 */
>> + struct {
>> + u64 flags0;
>> + u64 s2sz;
>> + u64 sve_vl;
>> + u64 num_bps;
>> + u64 num_wps;
>> + u64 pmu_num_ctrs;
>> + u64 hash_algo;
>> + u64 num_aux_planes;
>> + };
>> + u8 padding0[0x400];
>
> The union + sizer concept is cool. Technically this one isn't a padding,
> it's also a sizer? (same for the other structs below.
Yep, you're right. I have changed all in the file to sizer.
>
>> + };
...
>> +};
>> +
>> +static_assert(sizeof(struct realm_params) == SZ_4K);
>> +
>
> Does declaring this struct as packed matter? I guess the static_assert()
> has the same effect.
>
I guess it doesn't, the fields are naturally aligned for the offset.
That said, I have added static_assert() for starting offsets for a
a group of related fields to match the spec.
e.g;
static_assert(offsetof(struct realm_params, rpv) == 0x400);
static_assert(offsetof(struct realm_params, rtt_base) == 0x808);
static_assert(offsetof(struct realm_params, aux_rtt_base) == 0xf80);
Thanks for the review !
Suzuki
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list