Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:04:22 +0000 | From | Dave Martin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 16/20] arm64: Handle shared capability entries |
| |
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 06:28:03PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated > actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the > same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same > capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the > cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the > detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates > other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap. > > This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations > of a capability and ensures : > 1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects > 2) Action is only taken for the entries that detects. > > This avoids explicit checks in the call backs. The only constraint > here is that, all the entries should have the same "type". > > Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> > ---
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
[...]
> @@ -1275,7 +1274,7 @@ static bool __verify_local_cpu_caps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps_li > if (!(caps->type & scope_mask)) > continue; > > - cpu_has_cap = __this_cpu_has_cap(caps_list, caps->capability); > + cpu_has_cap = caps->matches(caps, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU);
One other minor thing: the original caps_list argument seems no longer to be needed in this function after this change.
Can we rename the caps_list argument to "caps" and remove the local variable of the same name?
Cheers ---Dave
| |