On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 05:42:19PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities
> available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored
> the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to
> accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with
> stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d40fd1
> ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"),
> there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability
> struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single
> capability. Changing the prototype is quite an invasive change and
> will be part of a future series. For now, add a comment to clarify
> what is expected.
>
> Suggested-by: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
> Cc: James Morse <james.mo...@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index ac67cfc2585a..c049e28274d4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,14 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
> u16 capability;
> int def_scope; /* default scope */
> bool (*matches)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, int scope);
> - int (*enable)(void *); /* Called on all active CPUs */
> + /*
> + * For each @capability set in CPU hwcaps, @enable() is called on all
> + * active CPUs with const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities * as argument.
its argument.
> + * It is upto the callback (especially when multiple entries for the
s/upto/up to/
> + * same capability exists) to determine if any action should be taken
s/exists/exit/
> + * based on @matches() applies to thie CPU.
s/thie/this/
Still, the second half of the sentence doesn't really make a lot of
sense. Instead of:
"to determine if any action should be taken based on @matches() applies
to this CPU"
how about:
"to determine if any action should be taken based on the result of
@matches() for the local CPU."
Otherwise:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
Will
