Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> writes:
> +static int rmi_check_version(void)
> +{
> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
> + int version_major, version_minor;
> + unsigned long host_version = RMI_ABI_VERSION(RMI_ABI_MAJOR_VERSION,
> + RMI_ABI_MINOR_VERSION);
> +
> + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(SMC_RMI_VERSION, host_version, &res);
> +
> + if (res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> + return -ENXIO;
> +
> + version_major = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MAJOR(res.a1);
> + version_minor = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MINOR(res.a1);
> +
> + if (res.a0 != RMI_SUCCESS) {
> + kvm_err("Unsupported RMI ABI (v%d.%d) we want v%d.%d\n",
> + version_major, version_minor,
> + RMI_ABI_MAJOR_VERSION,
> + RMI_ABI_MINOR_VERSION);
> + return -ENXIO;
> + }
> +
> + kvm_info("RMI ABI version %d.%d\n", version_major, version_minor);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
Should we include both high and low version numbers in the kvm_err
message on error? ie,
high_version_major = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MAJOR(res.a2);
high_version_minor = RMI_ABI_VERSION_GET_MINOR(res.a2);
-aneesh
