On 05/02/2021 23.04, Marc Zyngier wrote:

#facepalm

Thanks for the heads up. That's a blatant violation of the architecture,
as the only fixed value allowed is 0. I guess it was tempting for them
to ignore about half of the architecture... Oh well.

Here's a terrible hack on top of this series. It really doesn't
play nicely with the rest of the override stuff, but that's the
least of your worries at this stage. I've boot-tested it in a model
with E2H artificially forced, and nothing caught fire. YMMV.

It also means that if/when we merge the support for this CPU,
CONFIG_ARM64_VHE will becomes more or less mandatory...

Please let me know if this helps.

Yup, works fine. Tested the patchset on top of our tree, breaks as 
expected, adding this patch makes it boot again.

-- 
Hector Martin "marcan" (marcan@marcan.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel