[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564F21FC.1030306@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:37:00 +0000
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
will.deacon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: cpufeature: Track unsigned fields
On 19/11/15 18:45, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:03:13AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> On 19/11/15 04:57, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> a) A precise value (number of breakpoint registers) or a value from
> which you derive some precise value. You mentioned these above
>
> b) Fields defining the presence of a feature (1, 2, 3). These would
> always be positive since the absence of such feature would mean a
> value of 0
>
> c) Fields defining the absence of a feature by setting 0xf. These are
> usually fields that were initial RAZ and turned to -1. I don't expect
> such field be greater than 0, nor smaller than -1.
>
> So I think we can treat (a) and (b) as unsigned permanently.
Agreed.
> We could treat (c) as unsigned as well with a value of 0xf though I'm not sure
> how it matches your LOWER/HIGHER_SAFE definitions.
I think we should treat (c) as signed, as we never know what could change,
given that meaning of (0xf - implies unsupported) < meaning of (0 - supported).
Treating them unsigned could break the LOWER/HIGHER_SAFE definitions and makes
the safe value selection ugly.
Cheers
Suzuki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists