Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:06:28 +0000 | From | Dave Martin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 07/16] arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given type |
| |
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:21:43PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > 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
[...]
> >>@@ -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().
[...]
> >> 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.
Oh, right. Yes, I think that probably makes sense.
Cheers ---Dave
| |