On 19/11/15 18:45, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:03:13AM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 19/11/15 04:57, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
a) A precise value (number of breakpoint registers) or a value from
which you derive some precise value. You mentioned these above
b) Fi
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:03:13AM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 19/11/15 04:57, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > From my curiosity,
> >can you please clarify your criteria regarding which fields of a register
> >should be signed or unsigned?
> >I guessed that the fields marked with FTR_LOWER_SAF
On 19/11/15 10:03, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 19/11/15 04:57, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi
From my curiosity,
can you please clarify your criteria regarding which fields of a register
should be signed or unsigned?
I guessed that the fields marked with FTR_LOWER_SAFE or FTR_HIGHER_SAFE could
be
On 19/11/15 04:57, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi
From my curiosity,
can you please clarify your criteria regarding which fields of a register
should be signed or unsigned?
I guessed that the fields marked with FTR_LOWER_SAFE or FTR_HIGHER_SAFE could
be unsigned,
but it seems to be not always true
Hi
From my curiosity,
can you please clarify your criteria regarding which fields of a register
should be signed or unsigned?
I guessed that the fields marked with FTR_LOWER_SAFE or FTR_HIGHER_SAFE could
be unsigned,
but it seems to be not always true looking at your patch.
Anyhow, for example,
Some of the feature bits have unsigned values and need
to be treated accordingly to avoid errors. Adds the property
to the feature bits and use the appropriate field extract helpers.
Reported-by: AKASHI Takahiro
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K. Poulose
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu
6 matches
Mail list logo
