Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 16/20] arm64: Handle shared capability entries | From | Suzuki K Poulose <> | Date | Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:05:24 +0000 |
| |
On 08/02/18 12:04, Dave Martin wrote: > 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?
Sure, will do.
Suzuki
| |