[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160414164727.GK4584@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:47:27 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, marc.zyngier@....com,
ynorov@...iumnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: Add helpers for detecting AArch32 support
at EL0
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:46:08PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 14/04/16 17:39, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:27:31PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>Adds a helper to extract the support for AArch32 at EL0
> >>
> >>Tested-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
>
> >>+static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(u64 pfr0)
> >>+{
> >>+ u32 val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_SHIFT);
> >>+
> >>+ return val == ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_32BIT_64BIT;
> >
> >Should this be >=? What are the rules for this register?
>
> This feature value is kind of "FTR_EXACT" where, we don't know what the relationship
> of the values are. Here is the list of possible values :
>
> 0001 EL0 can be executed in AArch64 state only.
> 0010 EL0 can be executed in either AArch64 or AArch32 state.
>
> All the other values are reserved. So I believe "==" is better check.
Yeah, and thinking about it some more, that makes sense. Thanks.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists