Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2023 16:55:19 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64/sysreg: Move TRFCR definitions to sysreg | From | James Clark <> |
| |
On 04/08/2023 13:10, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:52:16AM +0100, James Clark wrote: > >> TRFCR_EL2_CX needs to become TRFCR_ELx_CX to avoid unnecessary >> duplication and make the SysregFields block re-usable. > > That field is only present in the EL2 version. I would tend to leave > the registers split for that reason, there's some minor potential for > confusion if people refer to the sysreg file rather than the docs, or > potentially confuse some future automation. However that's not a super > strongly held opinion. >
True, the potential for confusion is a good reason to not try to avoid duplication. Probably helps if it is ever auto generated or validated as well.
I could update it on the next version. But do I leave all the existing _ELx usages in the code, or change them all to _EL1 (Except CX_EL2)? To leave them as _ELx sysreg would look like this, even though _EL1 would probably be more accurate:
SysregFields TRFCR_EL2 Res0 63:7 UnsignedEnum 6:5 TS 0b0001 VIRTUAL 0b0010 GUEST_PHYSICAL 0b0011 PHYSICAL EndEnum Res0 4 Field 3 CX Res0 2 Field 1 E2TRE Field 0 E0TRE EndSysregFields
SysregFields TRFCR_ELx Res0 63:7 UnsignedEnum 6:5 TS 0b0001 VIRTUAL 0b0010 GUEST_PHYSICAL 0b0011 PHYSICAL EndEnum Res0 4:2 Field 1 ExTRE Field 0 E0TRE EndSysregFields
Sysreg TRFCR_EL1 3 0 1 2 1 Fields TRFCR_ELx EndSysreg
Sysreg TRFCR_EL2 3 4 1 2 1 Fields TRFCR_EL2 EndSysreg
Sysreg TRFCR_EL12 3 5 1 2 1 Fields TRFCR_ELx EndSysreg
> Otherwise this checks out against DDI0601 2023-06: > > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Thanks for the review
| |