Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 07/16] arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given type | From | Suzuki K Poulose <> | Date | Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:21:43 +0000 |
| |
On 26/01/18 11:22, Dave Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:28:00PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> While processing the list of capabilities, it is useful to >> filter out some of the entries based on the given type to >> allow better control. This can be used later for handling >> LOCAL vs SYSTEM wide capabilities and more. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 5 +++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h >> index 27d037bb0451..a621d2184227 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h >> @@ -99,6 +99,11 @@ extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0; >> /* 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) >> >> +#define ARM64_CPUCAP_TYPE_ALL \ >> + (ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU |\ >> + ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_SYSTEM |\ >> + ARM64_CPUCAP_LATE_CPU_SAFE_TO_HAVE |\ >> + ARM64_CPUCAP_LATE_CPU_SAFE_TO_MISS) > > Nit: can we have another tab between | and \? > > This will help to make missing |s stand out more if/when more entries > are added to this list in future. >
Sure, will do.
>> /* >> * CPU errata detected at boot time based on feature of one or more CPUs. >> * It is not safe for a late CPU to have this feature when the system doesn't >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c >> index 79737034a628..198c5daddd65 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c >> @@ -1180,9 +1180,11 @@ static bool __this_cpu_has_cap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap_array, >> } >> >> static void update_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, >> - const char *info) >> + u16 cap_type, const char *info) > > Semantically "cap_type" represents a set of accepted types, not a single > type here. > > Can we rename it to "cap_types", "cap_type_mask" or similar? > >> { >> for (; caps->matches; caps++) { >> + if (!(caps->type & cap_type)) >> + continue; > > Minor nit: insert a blank line here? > > To me, lack of a blank line suggests that the code will always fall > through to the next line, which is not the case after > return/continue/break/goto. > > Alternatively: > > if (!(caps->type & cap_type) || > !caps->matches(caps, caps->def_scope)) > continue; > > still seems fairly intelligible ...[1] > >> if (!caps->matches(caps, cpucap_default_scope(caps))) >> continue; >>
Yep, will do.
>> @@ -1204,12 +1206,13 @@ static int __enable_cpu_capability(void *arg) >> * Run through the enabled capabilities and enable() it on all active >> * CPUs >> */ >> -static void __init enable_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps) >> +static void __init >> +enable_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, u16 caps_type) > > The "caps_type" argument should be named consistently with the > corresponding argument to update_cpu_capabilities(). > >> { >> for (; caps->matches; caps++) { >> unsigned int num = caps->capability; >> >> - if (!cpus_have_cap(num)) >> + if (!(caps->type & caps_type) || !cpus_have_cap(num)) > > [1]... and would match the approach taken here. > >> continue; >> >> /* Ensure cpus_have_const_cap(num) works */ >> @@ -1231,12 +1234,16 @@ static void __init enable_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities * >> * Run through the list of capabilities to check for conflicts. >> * Returns "false" on conflicts. >> */ >> -static bool __verify_local_cpu_caps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps_list) >> +static bool __verify_local_cpu_caps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps_list, >> + u16 caps_type) >> { >> bool cpu_has_cap, system_has_cap; >> const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps = caps_list; >> >> for (; caps->matches; caps++) { >> + if (!(caps->type & caps_type)) >> + continue; >> + >> cpu_has_cap = __this_cpu_has_cap(caps_list, caps->capability); >> system_has_cap = cpus_have_cap(caps->capability); >> >> @@ -1299,7 +1306,7 @@ verify_local_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps) >> >> static void verify_local_cpu_features(void) >> { >> - if (!__verify_local_cpu_caps(arm64_features)) >> + if (!__verify_local_cpu_caps(arm64_features, ARM64_CPUCAP_TYPE_ALL)) >> cpu_die_early(); >> } >> >> @@ -1327,18 +1334,20 @@ static void verify_sve_features(void) >> */ >> static void verify_local_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) >> { >> - if (__verify_local_cpu_caps(arm64_errata)) >> + if (!__verify_local_cpu_caps(arm64_errata, ARM64_CPUCAP_TYPE_ALL)) >> cpu_die_early(); > > Did you mean to insert the ! here?
Thanks for spotting. I think it should have been there in the first place, as we get "false" when there is a conflict. I will fix the previous patch which adds the call.
Cheers Suzuki
| |