[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6tNiIMIhN5fPSJM@J2N7QTR9R3>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:15:52 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add missing registrations of SF8MMx hwcaps
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:58:10PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:37:44AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 07:14:58PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 06:41:09PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > > > Looking again, it looks like KERNEL_HWCAP_FPRCVT also isn't wired up?
>
> > > Indeed. I'll add that separately.
>
> > Given that KERNEL_HWCAP_FPRCVT was also added by commit 819935464cb2,
> > I assume you mean you'll send a v2 of this patch doing that.
>
> Well, I was actually intending to send a separate patch given that
> otherwise it ends up looking like two different changelogs in the same
> patch and the diffs shouldn't overlap.
It would be simpler for others if you sent a single patch that handled
the three hwcaps that we failed to wire up in commit 819935464cb2. That
way they only have one thing to track.
I don't understand what you mean by "two different changelogs"; surely the
commit message is a trivial variation of the one for this v1 patch:
| arm64: Add missing hwcap registrations
|
| Commit 819935464cb2 ("arm64/hwcap: Describe 2024 dpISA extensions to
| userspace") added definitions for HWCAP_F8MM8, HWCAP_F8MM4, and
| HWCAP_FPRCVT, but did not include the crucial registration in
| arm64_elf_hwcaps. Add them.
... and the diff from v1 is "Handle HWCAP_FPRCVT".
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists