On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:05:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:25:23AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:47:06AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

+static bool has_32bit_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
+{
+	if (!has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope))
+		return allow_mismatched_32bit_el0;
+
+	if (scope == SCOPE_SYSTEM)
+		pr_info("detected: 32-bit EL0 Support\n");
+
+	return true;
+}

We may have discussed this before: AFAICT this will print 32-bit EL0
detected even if there's no 32-bit EL0 on any CPU. Should we instead
print 32-bit EL0 detected on CPU X when allow_mismatched_32bit_el0 is
passed? It would also give us an indication of the system configuration
when people start reporting bugs.

The function above only runs if we've detected 32-bit support via
aa64pfr0_el1, so I think we're ok. We also have a print when we detect the
mismatch (see enable_mismatched_32bit_el0()).

It makes sense, you removed the .desc from the arm64_features entry as
well.

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

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