Hi,

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Have you tested all the code paths, or are there some things that have
not been tested?

I've tested for pKVM, nested and nhve and crash path
(I do my best what can I do for modified path).

Was that just confirming that the kernel boots / does not crash?

Not only that, since the my last mistake, I've check it with debugger
too -- set the SCTLR2_ELx as I expected.

quoted

What about CPU suspend/resume and hotplug?

Of course It's done both enter/exit idle and hotplug with related kselftest test.

Were you able to step through these paths, too?

Yes. with debugger and some trick with:
  asm volatile("b ." ::: "memory");

checking a cpu idle (by not loading any work) without any load and
checking cpu-hotplug with kselftest's cpu-on-off-test.sh.

So, by hitting the "b .", I've stepped in and confirm the SCTLR2_ELx set
as it intended.

quoted

quoted

My concern is that most of the defined SCTLR2_ELx bits won't affect
kernel execution unless the corresponding hardware features are
actively being used -- so while we know that the patches don't break
the kernel, this may not prove that SCTLR2_ELx is really being
initialised / saved / restored / reset correctly.

That's why I've confirmed with debugger whether the SCTLR2_ELx value
sets as I expected... personally I've done as much as I can for
test related for SCTLR2_ELx.

OK

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Since this code is not useful by itself, it may make sense to delay
merging it until we have patches for a feature that depends on SCTLR2.

Whatever I pass this detiermination for maintainer.

Sure, that's just my opinion.

Either way, this doesn't stop anyone from building support for specific
features on top of this series before it gets merged.

Looking again through this series, I realised that the requirements for
this feature are not documented in booting.rst.

Does the following patch look good to you?  If so, feel free to append
it to the series (with your Reviewed-by, if you're happy with the
changes).

It's probably worth double-checking the bit numbers etc.  I wrote this
some weeks ago and then forgot about it.

I've missed this and Thanks for your efforts.
The bits you documented have no problem as far as I checked.
Let me include this too in next series.

(I'm still checking your suggestion to use .ifc. as soon as finish
this. I'll repost it according to your suggestion)


Thanks!

[...]

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun