Re: [PATCH V3 02/16] arm64/cpufeature: Drop TraceFilt feature exposure from ID_DFR0 register
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-05-04 20:25:05
Also in:
lkml
On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 07:03:51PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
ID_DFR0 based TraceFilt feature should not be exposed to guests. Hence lets drop it. Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Suggested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <redacted> --- arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c index 6d032fbe416f..51386dade423 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c@@ -435,7 +435,6 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_pfr1[] = { }; static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_dfr0[] = { - ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 28, 4, 0),
Hmm, this still confuses me. Is this not now FTR_NONSTRICT? Why is that ok? Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel