On 08/10/15 16:08, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:56:28PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 08/10/15 12:11, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:02:05PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
@@ -137,13 +138,17 @@ extern struct pmu perf_ops_bp;
/* Determine number of BRP registers available. */
static inline int get_num_brps(void)
{
- return ((read_cpuid(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1) >> 12) & 0xf) + 1;
+ return 1 +
+
cpuid_feature_extract_field(read_system_reg(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1),
+ ID_AA64DFR0_BRPS_SHIFT);
}
cpuid_feature_extract_field() is fine but we should we bother with
read_system_reg vs just read_cpuid?
Similar question for patch 17/22.
Well, we would have already TAINTed the kernel, if these fields are different.
It is just the matter of, whether we want to provide the safer value on a
tainted
kernel or not. I am open to suggestions.
Ah, sorry, I mixed read_system_reg() with read_cpu_sysreg(). I think we
Oh, ok. I think we should rename it as you suggest below to avoid the
confusion.
need to rename the latter as it gets confusing. Maybe something like
read_native_sys_reg() or __raw_read_system_reg().
Thanks
Suzuki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
