From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Expose Arm v8.4 features
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 11:55:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180207115521.GO5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <336948e9-62c4-1ca0-c832-045095eda229@arm.com>
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:51:55AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 07/02/18 10:43, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 10:38:38AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>Expose the new features introduced by Arm v8.4 extensions to
> >>Arm v8-A profile.
> >>
> >>These include :
> >>
> >> 1) Data indpendent timing of instructions. (DIT, exposed as HWCAP_DIT)
> >> 2) Unaligned atomic instructions and Single-copy atomicity of loads
> >> and stores. (AT, expose as HWCAP_USCAT)
> >> 3) LDAPR and STLR instructions with immediate offsets (extension to
> >> LRCPC, exposed as HWCAP_ILRCPC)
> >> 4) Flag manipulation instructions (TS, exposed as HWCAP_FLAGM).
> >>
> >>While at it get rid of the RES0 entries in the cpu-feature-registers.txt
> >>documentation.
> >
> >Should we write somewhere than fields that are not described here are
> >implicitly RES0, or would that be too strong a statement?
>
> Dave,
>
> We already have the following description in the file :
>
> "The following rules are applied to the value returned by the
> infrastructure:
>
> a) The value of an 'IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED' field is set to 0.
> b) The value of a reserved field is populated with the reserved
> value as defined by the architecture.
> c) The value of a 'visible' field holds the system wide safe value
> for the particular feature (except for MIDR_EL1, see section 4).
> d) All other fields (i.e, invisible fields) are set to indicate
> the feature is missing (as defined by the architecture).
> "
>
> So we don't have to bother if the fields are RES0 or they get
> some definitions in the future, as long as we don't expose them.
Agreed, that does seem sufficient:
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-01 10:38 [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Relax constraints on ID feature bits Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-01 10:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Expose Arm v8.4 features Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:43 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 10:51 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 11:55 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2018-02-07 10:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Relax constraints on ID feature bits Dave Martin
2018-02-07 11:41 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 12:34 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 13:24 ` Suzuki K Poulose
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180207115521.GO5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®