Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:03:48 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64/sysreg: Move TRFCR definitions to sysreg |
| |
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:55:19PM +0100, James Clark wrote: > 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
You could just leave this as _ELx and simply not reference it for the EL1 definition which is proably fair? Perhaps with a comment saying why there's an expanded definition for EL1. I don't think it fundamentally matters which way it's done so long as EL1 stays a subset of the EL2 definition (which seems likely, and we can always revisit should that happen). [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |