lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: Track system support for mixed endian EL0
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:36:04PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>
> This patch keeps track of the mixed endian EL0 support across
> the system and provides helper functions to export it. The status
> is a boolean indicating whether all the CPUs on the system supports
> mixed endian at EL0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K. Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 10 ++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 07547cc..c7f68d1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@
>
> #define ARM64_NCAPS 2
>
> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_BigEndEL0 (0x1UL << 16)
> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_BigEnd (0x1UL << 8)

I don't like the CaMeLcAsE. Also, perhaps these definitions should be
somewhere like cputype.h?

> +
> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>
> extern DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
> @@ -51,7 +54,14 @@ static inline void cpus_set_cap(unsigned int num)
> __set_bit(num, cpu_hwcaps);
> }
>
> +static inline bool id_aa64mmfr0_mixed_endian_el0(unsigned long mmfr0)
> +{
> + return !!(mmfr0 & (ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_BigEndEL0 | ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_BigEnd));
> +}

These are 4-bit fields and I think you think you should be treating them
as such.

> +
> void check_local_cpu_errata(void);
> +bool system_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void);
> +bool cpu_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void);
>
> #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> index 07d435c..b6d1135 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> */
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuinfo_arm64, cpu_data);
> static struct cpuinfo_arm64 boot_cpu_data;
> +static bool mixed_endian_el0 = true;
>
> static char *icache_policy_str[] = {
> [ICACHE_POLICY_RESERVED] = "RESERVED/UNKNOWN",
> @@ -68,6 +69,26 @@ static void cpuinfo_detect_icache_policy(struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info)
> pr_info("Detected %s I-cache on CPU%d\n", icache_policy_str[l1ip], cpu);
> }
>
> +bool cpu_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void)
> +{
> + return id_aa64mmfr0_mixed_endian_el0(read_cpuid(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1));
> +}

Can we not just define a mask/value pair and have code do the MMFR0 access
inline? It also feels a bit over-engineered like this.

Will


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-16 17:01    [W:0.144 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site