[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191010164312.GB40923@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:43:12 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Jia He <justin.he@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hejianet@...il.com,
Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@....com>, nd@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/4] arm64: cpufeature: introduce helper
cpu_has_hw_af()
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:42:43PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> We unconditionally set the HW_AFDBM capability and only enable it on
> CPUs which really have the feature. But sometimes we need to know
> whether this cpu has the capability of HW AF. So decouple AF from
> DBM by a new helper cpu_has_hw_af().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@....com>
> Suggested-by: Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
I don't think I reviewed this version of the patch.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 9cde5d2e768f..1a95396ea5c8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -659,6 +659,20 @@ static inline u32 id_aa64mmfr0_parange_to_phys_shift(int parange)
> default: return CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS;
> }
> }
> +
> +/* Check whether hardware update of the Access flag is supported */
> +static inline bool cpu_has_hw_af(void)
> +{
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_HW_AFDBM)) {
Please just return early here to avoid unnecessary indentation:
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_HW_AFDBM))
return false;
> + u64 mmfr1 = read_cpuid(ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1);
> +
> + return !!cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr1,
> + ID_AA64MMFR1_HADBS_SHIFT);
No need for !!, the return type is a bool already.
Anyway, apart from these nitpicks, the patch is fine you can keep my
reviewed-by.
If later we noticed a potential performance issue on this path, we can
turn it into a static label as with other CPU features.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists