[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5772A263.2050503@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:14:27 +0100
From: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com, steve.capper@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"edward.nevill@...aro.org" <edward.nevill@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: cpuinfo: Expose MIDR_EL1 and REVIDR_EL1 to
sysfs
On 28/06/16 16:33, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 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?
I am fine with either.
Edward,
Do you have any preference ?
Suzuki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists