[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89a8e191-63e0-4237-879e-03130fb07f88@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:54:51 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Only provide the length to cpufeature for
xCR registers
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 11:27:20AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > zcr = read_sysreg_s(SYS_ZCR_EL1);
> > - zcr &= ~(u64)ZCR_ELx_LEN_MASK; /* find sticky 1s outside LEN field */
> > + zcr &= ~(u64)ZCR_ELx_LEN_MASK;
> > vq_max = sve_vq_from_vl(sve_get_vl());
> > zcr |= vq_max - 1; /* set LEN field to maximum effective value */
> > - return zcr;
> > + return SYS_FIELD_GET(ZCR_ELx, LEN, zcr);
> Isn't that overly complex if we only end up with the length? (if I'm reading this right)
> Perhaps it is more logical to build the register then pull the
> field out of it, but it would be simpler as something like...
> return sve_vq_from_vl(sve_get_vl()) - 1;
We could, yes - I did prefer to keep it clear that this is an actual
if modified register value we're returning, though that could've been a
comment.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists