On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 10:55:51AM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote: > > > + unsigned long route_mode = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 4); > > > > This is really 'flags'. route_mode is bit[0]. I imagine we don't want to > > support relative mode, so bit[1] is useless for us in that case too. > > > > The spec is somewhat imprecise on what happens for reserved flags. The > > prototype in section 5.1.2 of [1] suggests that reserved bits must be > > zero, but 5.1.2.3 'Client responsibilities' does not state that invalid > > flags result in an error. > > > > Arm TF certainly rejects unexpected flags [2]. > > > > [1]: DEN0054C https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0054/latest > > [2]: https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/66c3906e4c32d675eb06bd081de8a3359f76b84c/services/std_svc/sdei/sdei_main.c#L260 > > > > Yes, This chunk of code is still stick to old specification. Lets > improve in next respin: > > - Rename @route_mode to @flags > - Reject if the reserved bits are set. > - Reject if relative mode (bit#1) is selected. > - Reject if routing mode (bit#0) isn't RM_ANY (0). Bit[0] is ignored for private events, actually. So we really just reject if any of bit[63:1] are set. -- Thanks, Oliver _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
