[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b48ec33-db45-d6b2-b519-b5652196cb45@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:10:47 +0000
From: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
marc.zyngier@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, james.morse@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: Relax constraints on ID feature bits
On 07/02/18 15:09, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 02:21:05PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
...
> [...]
>
>> - ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR0_ASID_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> + /*
>> + * We handle differing ASID widths by explicit checks to make sure the system is
>> + * safe via verify_cpu_asid_bits()
>
> I guess that's sufficient.
>
> Although I had suggested adding a comment to verify_cpu_asid_bits()
> cross-referencing back to here, it now seems superfluous. It's fairly
> obvious what that function is supported to do.
>
>
> [...]
>
>> - ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR1_VHE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>
> [...]
>
>> + /*
>> + * When CONFIG_ARM64_VHE is enabled, we ensure that there is no conflict in run
>> + * levels via verify_cpu_run_el()
>> + */
>> + ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR1_VHE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>
> Similarly ack.
>
>
> [...]
>
>> - ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR2_IESB_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>
> [...]
>
>> + /*
>> + * Lacking implicit ESB on exception boundaries on a subset of CPUs is no worse than
>> + * lacking it on all of them.
>> + */
>> + ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR2_IESB_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>
> And again. Thanks.
>
> [...]
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
>
Thanks Dave !
Powered by blists - more mailing lists