Hi Julien,
> On 22 Sep 2024, at 11:00, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> On 19/09/2024 14:19, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> Rework firmware discovery during probe:
>> - move prints into the probe
>> - rename ffa_version to ffa_fw_version as the variable identifies the
>> version of the firmware and not the one we support
>> - add error prints when allocation fail during probe
>> No functional changes.
>> Signed-off-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marq...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa.c b/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa.c
>> index 022089278e1c..7c84aa6aa43d 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa.c
>> @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@
>> #include "ffa_private.h"
>> -/* Negotiated FF-A version to use with the SPMC */
>> -static uint32_t __ro_after_init ffa_version;
>> +/* Negotiated FF-A version to use with the SPMC, 0 if not there or
>> supported */
>> +static uint32_t __ro_after_init ffa_fw_version;
>> /*
>> @@ -105,10 +105,7 @@ static bool ffa_get_version(uint32_t *vers)
>> arm_smccc_1_2_smc(&arg, &resp);
>> if ( resp.a0 == FFA_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED )
>> - {
>> - gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "ffa: FFA_VERSION returned not supported\n");
>> return false;
>> - }
>> *vers = resp.a0;
>> @@ -372,7 +369,7 @@ static int ffa_domain_init(struct domain *d)
>> struct ffa_ctx *ctx;
>> int ret;
>> - if ( !ffa_version )
>> + if ( !ffa_fw_version )
>> return -ENODEV;
>> /*
>> * We can't use that last possible domain ID or ffa_get_vm_id() would
>> @@ -505,6 +502,9 @@ static bool ffa_probe(void)
>> */
>> BUILD_BUG_ON(PAGE_SIZE != FFA_PAGE_SIZE);
>> + printk(XENLOG_INFO "ARM FF-A Mediator version %u.%u\n",
>> + FFA_MY_VERSION_MAJOR, FFA_MY_VERSION_MINOR);
> > +> /*
>> * psci_init_smccc() updates this value with what's reported by EL-3
>> * or secure world.
>> @@ -514,25 +514,21 @@ static bool ffa_probe(void)
>> printk(XENLOG_ERR
>> "ffa: unsupported SMCCC version %#x (need at least %#x)\n",
>> smccc_ver, ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_2);
>> - return false;
>> + goto err_no_fw;
>> }
>> if ( !ffa_get_version(&vers) )
>> - return false;
>> + {
>> + gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "ffa: FFA_VERSION returned not supported\n");
>
> This error message relies on the implementation of ffa_get_version(). It made
> sense in the previous placement, but here, it seems a little bit odd. So if
> you want to move the error message, then I think it should be reworded to be
> more generic.
>
> Maybe: "Cannot retrieve the FFA version".
Ack
>
>> + goto err_no_fw;
>> + }
>> if ( vers < FFA_MIN_SPMC_VERSION || vers > FFA_MY_VERSION )
>> {
>> printk(XENLOG_ERR "ffa: Incompatible version %#x found\n", vers);
>> - return false;
>> + goto err_no_fw;
>> }
>> - major_vers = (vers >> FFA_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT) &
>> FFA_VERSION_MAJOR_MASK;
>> - minor_vers = vers & FFA_VERSION_MINOR_MASK;
>> - printk(XENLOG_INFO "ARM FF-A Mediator version %u.%u\n",
>> - FFA_MY_VERSION_MAJOR, FFA_MY_VERSION_MINOR);
>
> I kind of understand why we are moving the Medatior version early but...
>
>> - printk(XENLOG_INFO "ARM FF-A Firmware version %u.%u\n",
>> - major_vers, minor_vers);
>
> ... I am not sure why we would move this print later. Wouldn't this be useful
> to know if there is a missing feature?
True I will move it back up.
>> -
>> /*
>> * At the moment domains must support the same features used by Xen.
>> * TODO: Rework the code to allow domain to use a subset of the
>> @@ -546,12 +542,24 @@ static bool ffa_probe(void)
>> !check_mandatory_feature(FFA_MEM_SHARE_32) ||
>> !check_mandatory_feature(FFA_MEM_RECLAIM) ||
>> !check_mandatory_feature(FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ_32) )
>> - return false;
>> + {
>> + printk(XENLOG_ERR "ffa: Mandatory feature not supported by fw\n");
>> + goto err_no_fw;
>> + }
>> - if ( !ffa_rxtx_init() )
>> - return false;
>> + major_vers = (vers >> FFA_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT)
>> + & FFA_VERSION_MAJOR_MASK;
>> + minor_vers = vers & FFA_VERSION_MINOR_MASK;
>> + printk(XENLOG_INFO "ARM FF-A Firmware version %u.%u\n",
>> + major_vers, minor_vers);
>> +
>> + ffa_fw_version = vers;
>> - ffa_version = vers;
>> + if ( !ffa_rxtx_init() )
>> + {
>> + printk(XENLOG_ERR "ffa: Error during RXTX buffer init\n");
>> + goto err_no_fw;
>> + }
>> if ( !ffa_partinfo_init() )
>> goto err_rxtx_destroy;
>> @@ -564,7 +572,9 @@ static bool ffa_probe(void)
>> err_rxtx_destroy:
>> ffa_rxtx_destroy();
>> - ffa_version = 0;
>> +err_no_fw:
>> + ffa_fw_version = 0;
>> + printk(XENLOG_INFO "ARM FF-A No firmware support\n");
>
> I am guessing if we are trying to probe FFA, then most likely the user
> expected to use it. So shouldn't this be a XENLOG_WARN?
Ack.
Cheers
Bertrand
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
