[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9db95188-71c2-491a-a4c7-434e7cd3c407@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:29:26 +0800
From: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
Eric Auger <eauger@...hat.com>, Sebastian Ott <sebott@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] KVM: arm64: Making BT Field in ID_AA64PFR1_EL1
writable
Hi Marc,
On 6/13/24 16:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:31:45 +0100,
> Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> If we don't care about the FEAT_CNTSC right now. Could I fix the
>> compile issue and respin this again without the background of enabling
>> migration between MtCollins and AmpereOne, and just keep the
>> information of the different BT field between different machine?
>
> As I said, I think this patch is valuable. But maybe you should
> consider tackling the full register, rather than only addressing a
> single field.
Yes, it would be better to tackling the full register. I will put more
time on other fields in the register and try to making more field to be
writable. But currently I just respin the series with deleting the
machine specific information and fixing the compilation issue.
Thanks,
Shaoqin
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
--
Shaoqin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists