[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161130113150.GB4439@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:31:50 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <sid@...erved-bit.com>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
ryan.arnold@...aro.org, aph@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org, dave.martin@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] arm64: Documentation - Expose CPU feature registers
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:44:52PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2016 07:10 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > + d) CPU Identification :
> > + MIDR_EL1 is exposed to help identify the processor. On a
> > + heterogeneous system, this could be racy (just like getcpu()). The
> > + process could be migrated to another CPU by the time it uses the
> > + register value, unless the CPU affinity is set. Hence, there is no
> > + guarantee that the value reflects the processor that it is
> > + currently executing on. The REVIDR is not exposed due to this
> > + constraint, as REVIDR makes sense only in conjunction with the
> > + MIDR. Alternately, MIDR_EL1 and REVIDR_EL1 are exposed via sysfs
> > + at:
> > +
> > + /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$ID/regs/identification/
> > + \- midr
> > + \- revidr
> > +
>
> This doesn't seem to be implemented in this patchset.
No. However, we merged the functionality above already and forgot about
the documentation part, so we just clarify it now.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists