On 12/19/24 3:44 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
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);
I think so since a range of supported versions are returned in the failing case.
Besides, 'unsigned short' is more suitable for the local variable version_{major, minor}
since both are 16-bits in width. 'unsigned short' explicitly indicates their
width.
Thanks,
Gavin
