lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/16] arm64: Add flags to check the safety of a capability for late CPU
From
Date
On 26/01/18 10:10, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:27:58PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Add two different flags to indicate if the conflict of a capability
>> on a late CPU with the current system state
>>
>> 1) Can a CPU have a capability when the system doesn't have it ?
>>
>> Most arm64 features could have this set. While erratum work arounds
>> cannot have this, as we may miss work arounds.
>>
>> 2) Can a CPU miss a capability when the system has it ?
>> This could be set for arm64 erratum work arounds as we don't
>> care if a CPU doesn't need the work around. However it should
>> be clear for features.
>>
>> These flags could be added to certain entries based on their nature.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> index 4fd5de8ef33e..27d037bb0451 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> @@ -94,10 +94,25 @@ extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0;
>> #define SCOPE_SYSTEM ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_SYSTEM
>> #define SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU
>>
>> -/* CPU errata detected at boot time based on feature of one or more CPUs */
>> -#define ARM64_CPUCAP_STRICT_CPU_LOCAL_ERRATUM (ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)
>> -/* CPU feature detected at boot time based on system-wide value of a feature */
>> -#define ARM64_CPUCAP_BOOT_SYSTEM_FEATURE (ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_SYSTEM)
>> +/* Is it safe for a late CPU to have this capability when system doesn't already have */
>> +#define ARM64_CPUCAP_LATE_CPU_SAFE_TO_HAVE BIT(2)
>> +/* Is it safe for a late CPU to miss this capability when system has it */
>> +#define ARM64_CPUCAP_LATE_CPU_SAFE_TO_MISS BIT(3)
>
> Maybe _OPTIONAL and _PERMITTED would be a bit less verbose?
>
> Alternatively,
> ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU
> ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU

Sounds better than what I have. I have picked them up.

Cheers
Suzuki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-30 12:17    [W:0.088 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site