Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Add ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_MASK
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: 2020-05-12 10:53:49
Also in:
kvmarm, lkml
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 07:43:26AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
This replaces multiple open encoding (0x7) with ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_MASK thus cleaning the clutter. It modifies an existing ID_AA64MMFR0 helper and introduces a new one i.e id_aa64mmfr0_iparange() and id_aa64mmfr0_parange() respectively. Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <redacted> --- This applies after (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11541893/). arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 11 ++++++++++- arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 5 ++--- arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 9 +++++---- 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h index 1291ad5a9ccb..320cfc5b6025 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h@@ -706,8 +706,17 @@ void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state); extern int do_emulate_mrs(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 sys_reg, u32 rt); -static inline u32 id_aa64mmfr0_parange_to_phys_shift(int parange) +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_MASK 0x7
We already have ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_SHIFT in <asm/sysreg.h>, so if we need this it should live there too. The ARM ARM tells me ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.PARange is bits 3:0, so this should be 0xf. Given it's a standard 4-bit field, do we even need this? We have helpers that assume 4 bits for standard fields, e.g. cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field().
+
+static inline u32 id_aa64mmfr0_parange(u64 mmfr0)
{
+ return mmfr0 & ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_MASK;
+}return cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0, ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_SHIFT);
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ +static inline u32 id_aa64mmfr0_iparange(u64 mmfr0) +{ + int parange = id_aa64mmfr0_parange(mmfr0); + switch (parange) { case 0: return 32; case 1: return 36;diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c index 30917fe7942a..2c62f7c64a3c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c@@ -2185,7 +2185,7 @@ static void verify_sve_features(void) void verify_hyp_capabilities(void) { u64 safe_mmfr1, mmfr0, mmfr1; - int parange, ipa_max; + int ipa_max; unsigned int safe_vmid_bits, vmid_bits; safe_mmfr1 = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1);@@ -2201,8 +2201,7 @@ void verify_hyp_capabilities(void) } /* Verify IPA range */ - parange = mmfr0 & 0x7; - ipa_max = id_aa64mmfr0_parange_to_phys_shift(parange); + ipa_max = id_aa64mmfr0_iparange(mmfr0);
Why drop id_aa64mmfr0_parange_to_phys_shift()?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
if (ipa_max < get_kvm_ipa_limit()) { pr_crit("CPU%d: IPA range mismatch\n", smp_processor_id()); cpu_die_early();diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c index 841b492ff334..2e4da75d79ea 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c@@ -347,10 +347,10 @@ u32 get_kvm_ipa_limit(void) void kvm_set_ipa_limit(void) { - unsigned int ipa_max, pa_max, va_max, parange; + unsigned int ipa_max, pa_max, va_max; - parange = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1) & 0x7; - pa_max = id_aa64mmfr0_parange_to_phys_shift(parange); + pa_max = id_aa64mmfr0_iparange(read_sanitised_ftr_reg + (SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1));
Weird style here. the '(' should be kept next to the function name.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
/* Clamp the IPA limit to the PA size supported by the kernel */ ipa_max = (pa_max > PHYS_MASK_SHIFT) ? PHYS_MASK_SHIFT : pa_max;@@ -411,7 +411,8 @@ int kvm_arm_setup_stage2(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type) phys_shift = KVM_PHYS_SHIFT; } - parange = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1) & 7; + parange = id_aa64mmfr0_parange(read_sanitised_ftr_reg + (SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1));
Can't we add a system_ipa_range() helper, and avoid more boilerplate in
each of these?
e.g.
int system_ipa_range(void)
{
u64 mmfr0;
int parange;
mmfr0 = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1);
parange = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0,
ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_SHIFT);
return parange;
}
... we do similar for the system_supports_xxx() helpers.
Thanks,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel