On 14/05/15 12:25, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 01:09:24PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Add a new item to the feature set (ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF)
>> to indicate that we have a system register GIC CPU interface
>>
>> This will help KVM switching to alternative instruction patching.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h |  8 +++++++-
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c      | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h 
>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> index 6ae35d1..d9e57b5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> @@ -23,8 +23,9 @@
>>  
>>  #define ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE                0
>>  #define ARM64_WORKAROUND_DEVICE_LOAD_ACQUIRE        1
>> +#define ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF          2
>>  
>> -#define ARM64_NCAPS                         2
>> +#define ARM64_NCAPS                         3
>>  
>>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>  
>> @@ -37,6 +38,11 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
>>                      u32 midr_model;
>>                      u32 midr_range_min, midr_range_max;
>>              };
>> +
>> +            struct {        /* Feature register checking */
>> +                    u64 register_mask;
>> +                    u64 register_value;
>> +            };
>>      };
>>  };
>>  
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 3d9967e..b0bea2b3 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -22,7 +22,23 @@
>>  #include <asm/cpu.h>
>>  #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
>>  
>> +static bool
>> +has_id_aa64pfr0_feature(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
>> +{
>> +    u64 val;
>> +
>> +    val = read_cpuid(id_aa64pfr0_el1);
> 
> is this preferred compared to fishing it out of cpuinfo ?

Probably for the moment, yes. At some point, we should be able to have a
consolidated set of features, consistent across all CPUs in the system.
Once we have that, we should revisit this detection mecanism.

>> +    return (val & entry->register_mask) == entry->register_value;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
>> +    {
>> +            .desc = "system register GIC CPU interface",
>> +            .capability = ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF,
>> +            .matches = has_id_aa64pfr0_feature,
>> +            .register_mask = (0xf << 24),
>> +            .register_value = (1 << 24),
> 
> I don't know if it's worth defining these masks in some header file.
> The only other place I could see them used was in head.S.

Mark was looking at this a while ago. Maybe a task for a sleepless
night? ;-)

Thanks,

        M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Reply via email to