Thread (42 messages) 42 messages, 4 authors, 2021-08-16

Re: [PATCH v3 08/15] KVM: arm64: Add feature register flag definitions

From: Fuad Tabba <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-12 09:25:26
Also in: kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel

Hi Will,

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:59 AM Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 05:03:39PM +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote:
quoted
Add feature register flag definitions to clarify which features
might be supported.

Consolidate the various ID_AA64PFR0_ELx flags for all ELs.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Fuad Tabba <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h |  4 ++--
 arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h     | 12 ++++++++----
 arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c      |  8 ++++----
 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
index 9bb9d11750d7..b7d9bb17908d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
@@ -602,14 +602,14 @@ static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el1(u64 pfr0)
 {
      u32 val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_SHIFT);

-     return val == ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_32BIT_64BIT;
+     return val == ID_AA64PFR0_ELx_32BIT_64BIT;
 }

 static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(u64 pfr0)
 {
      u32 val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_SHIFT);

-     return val == ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_32BIT_64BIT;
+     return val == ID_AA64PFR0_ELx_32BIT_64BIT;
 }

 static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_sve(u64 pfr0)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
index 326f49e7bd42..0b773037251c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
@@ -784,14 +784,13 @@
 #define ID_AA64PFR0_AMU                      0x1
 #define ID_AA64PFR0_SVE                      0x1
 #define ID_AA64PFR0_RAS_V1           0x1
+#define ID_AA64PFR0_RAS_ANY          0xf
This doesn't correspond to an architectural definition afaict: the manual
says that any values other than 0, 1 or 2 are "reserved" so we should avoid
defining our own definitions here.
I'll add a ID_AA64PFR0_RAS_V2 definition in that case and use it for
the checking later. That would achieve the same goal and I wouldn't be
adding definitions to the reserved area.

Cheers,
/fuad
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help