On 14/11/16 11:48, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
+static inline bool system_supports_fpsimd(void)
+{
+ return !cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD);
+}
Any particular reason why using negation instead of a ARM64_HAS_FPSIMD?
A potential problem would be the default
On 14/11/16 11:48, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
+static inline bool system_supports_fpsimd(void)
+{
+ return !cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD);
+}
Any particular reason why using negation instead of a ARM64_HAS_FPSIMD?
A potential problem would be the default
Hi Suzuki,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 01:56:21PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> index 87b4465..4174f09 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> @@ -34,7 +34,8 @@
Hi Suzuki,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 01:56:21PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> index 87b4465..4174f09 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> @@ -34,7 +34,8 @@
The arm64 kernel assumes that FP/ASIMD units are always present
and accesses the FP/ASIMD specific registers unconditionally. This
could cause problems when they are absent. This patch adds the
support for kernel handling systems without FP/ASIMD by skipping the
register access within the kernel.
The arm64 kernel assumes that FP/ASIMD units are always present
and accesses the FP/ASIMD specific registers unconditionally. This
could cause problems when they are absent. This patch adds the
support for kernel handling systems without FP/ASIMD by skipping the
register access within the kernel.
6 matches
Mail list logo