[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160628153346.GF4585@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:33:46 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc: will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com, steve.capper@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: cpuinfo: Expose MIDR_EL1 and REVIDR_EL1 to
sysfs
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> +#define CPUINFO_ATTR_RO(_name) \
> + static ssize_t show_##_name(struct device *dev, \
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) \
> + { \
> + struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info = &per_cpu(cpu_data, dev->id); \
> + \
> + if (info->reg_midr) \
> + return sprintf(buf, "0x%016x\n", info->reg_##_name); \
> + else \
> + return 0; \
> + } \
> + static DEVICE_ATTR(_name, 0444, show_##_name, NULL)
> +
> +CPUINFO_ATTR_RO(midr);
> +CPUINFO_ATTR_RO(revidr);
Since exposing these values is aimed at JIT code (and not human
readable), wouldn't it make more sense to present the binary value
instead of the ascii transformation?
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists