[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tencent_338DF690631BAE788C4CC858233E9FBAE006@qq.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 00:00:12 +0800
From: Yangyu Chen <cyy@...self.name>
To: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Elliott Hughes <enh@...gle.com>,
Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>,
Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Yangyu Chen <cyy@...self.name>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] docs: riscv: hwprobe: Clarify misaligned keys are values not bitmasks
The original documentation says hwprobe keys are bitmasks, but actually,
they are values. This patch clarifies this to avoid confusion.
Signed-off-by: Yangyu Chen <cyy@...self.name>
---
Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst | 31 ++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
index 239be63f5089..4abfa3f9fe44 100644
--- a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
+++ b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
@@ -188,25 +188,30 @@ The following keys are defined:
manual starting from commit 95cf1f9 ("Add changes requested by Ved
during signoff")
-* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0`: A bitmask that contains performance
+* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0`: A value that contains performance
information about the selected set of processors.
- * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN`: The performance of misaligned
- scalar accesses is unknown.
+ * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_MASK`: The bitmask of the misaligned
+ access performance field in the value of key `RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0`.
- * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED`: Misaligned scalar accesses are
- emulated via software, either in or below the kernel. These accesses are
- always extremely slow.
+ The following values (not bitmasks) in this field are defined:
- * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW`: Misaligned scalar accesses are
- slower than equivalent byte accesses. Misaligned accesses may be supported
- directly in hardware, or trapped and emulated by software.
+ * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN`: The performance of misaligned
+ scalar accesses is unknown.
- * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST`: Misaligned scalar accesses are
- faster than equivalent byte accesses.
+ * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED`: Misaligned scalar accesses are
+ emulated via software, either in or below the kernel. These accesses are
+ always extremely slow.
- * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned scalar accesses
- are not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
+ * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW`: Misaligned scalar accesses are
+ slower than equivalent byte accesses. Misaligned accesses may be supported
+ directly in hardware, or trapped and emulated by software.
+
+ * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST`: Misaligned scalar accesses are
+ faster than equivalent byte accesses.
+
+ * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned scalar accesses
+ are not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE`: An unsigned int which
represents the size of the Zicboz block in bytes.
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists