[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wml149ps.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:55:59 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix outdated comment about incomplete FGT bitmask definitions
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:58:37 +0100,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Comments in the code say that our definitions for the FGT registers are not
> the generated ones and are updated only as far as DDI0487 J.a however in
> commit 9ff67dd26a9e ("KVM: arm64: Use generated FGT RES0 bits instead of
> specifying them") we updated to use the generated definitions, and as of
> the release of DDI0487 K.a the XML in DD0601 is in sync with the ARM.
s/ARM/ARM ARM/. Which revision of the XML? K.a and the latest version
of the XML are definitely not in sync.
Also, please make use of punctuation. I can't parse this *single*
sentence as it stands.
> Remove the outdated comment about divergence.
>
> Fixes: 9ff67dd26a9e ("KVM: arm64: Use generated FGT RES0 bits instead of specifying them")
Definitely *not* a fix.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists