lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: cpufeature: Track unsigned fields
From
Date
On 19/11/15 18:45, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:03:13AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> On 19/11/15 04:57, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:


> a) A precise value (number of breakpoint registers) or a value from
> which you derive some precise value. You mentioned these above
>
> b) Fields defining the presence of a feature (1, 2, 3). These would
> always be positive since the absence of such feature would mean a
> value of 0
>
> c) Fields defining the absence of a feature by setting 0xf. These are
> usually fields that were initial RAZ and turned to -1. I don't expect
> such field be greater than 0, nor smaller than -1.
>
> So I think we can treat (a) and (b) as unsigned permanently.

Agreed.

> We could treat (c) as unsigned as well with a value of 0xf though I'm not sure
> how it matches your LOWER/HIGHER_SAFE definitions.

I think we should treat (c) as signed, as we never know what could change,
given that meaning of (0xf - implies unsupported) < meaning of (0 - supported).
Treating them unsigned could break the LOWER/HIGHER_SAFE definitions and makes
the safe value selection ugly.

Cheers
Suzuki



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-20 15:01    [W:0.059 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site