[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <016cbd81-3aad-4160-88b7-13aa303e1821@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:03:48 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Cc: coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@....com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Jintack Lim <jintack.lim@...aro.org>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64/sysreg: Move TRFCR definitions to sysreg
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:55:19PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:52:16AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> >> TRFCR_EL2_CX needs to become TRFCR_ELx_CX to avoid unnecessary
> >> duplication and make the SysregFields block re-usable.
> > That field is only present in the EL2 version. I would tend to leave
> > the registers split for that reason, there's some minor potential for
> > confusion if people refer to the sysreg file rather than the docs, or
> > potentially confuse some future automation. However that's not a super
> > strongly held opinion.
> True, the potential for confusion is a good reason to not try to avoid
> duplication. Probably helps if it is ever auto generated or validated as
> well.
> I could update it on the next version. But do I leave all the existing
> _ELx usages in the code, or change them all to _EL1 (Except CX_EL2)? To
> leave them as _ELx sysreg would look like this, even though _EL1 would
> probably be more accurate:
> SysregFields TRFCR_EL2
You could just leave this as _ELx and simply not reference it for the
EL1 definition which is proably fair? Perhaps with a comment saying why
there's an expanded definition for EL1. I don't think it fundamentally
matters which way it's done so long as EL1 stays a subset of the EL2
definition (which seems likely, and we can always revisit should that
happen).
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists