Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64/cpufeature: Replace all open bits shift encodings with macros

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 01/28/2020 12:39 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> There are many open bits shift encodings for various CPU ID registers that
> are scattered across cpufeature. This replaces them with register specific
> sensible macro definitions. This should not have any functional change.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
> ---


> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_ctr[] = {
>   	 * make use of *minLine.
>   	 * If we have differing I-cache policies, report it as the weakest - VIPT.
>   	 */
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_EXACT, 14, 2, ICACHE_POLICY_VIPT),	/* L1Ip */
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_EXACT, CTR_L1IP_SHIFT, 2, ICACHE_POLICY_VIPT),	/* L1Ip */
>   	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, CTR_IMINLINE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>   	ARM64_FTR_END,
>   };
> @@ -274,19 +274,19 @@ struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0 = {
>   };
>   
>   static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_mmfr0[] = {
> -	S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 28, 4, 0xf),	/* InnerShr */
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 24, 4, 0),	/* FCSE */
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 20, 4, 0),	/* AuxReg */
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 16, 4, 0),	/* TCM */
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 12, 4, 0),	/* ShareLvl */
> -	S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 8, 4, 0xf),	/* OuterShr */
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 4, 4, 0),	/* PMSA */
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 0, 4, 0),	/* VMSA */
> +	S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_INNERSHR_SHIFT, 4, 0xf),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_FCSE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_AUXREG_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_TCM_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_SHARELVL_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_OUTERSHR_SHIFT, 4, 0xf),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_PMSA_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_MMFR0_VMSA_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>   	ARM64_FTR_END,
>   };
>   
>   static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_EXACT, 36, 28, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_EXACT, ID_AA64DFR0_DOUBLELOCK_SHIFT, 28, 0),

This must be a signed feature, as we have the following possible values :

	0b0000 - Double lock implemented
	0b1111 - Double lock not implemented.

So, in case of a conflict we want the safe value as 0b1111.

Please could you fix this as well ?


This patch as such looks fine to me.

Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>