Re: [PATCH] arm64: Introduce ISAR6 CPU ID register

[Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>]

On 12/12/2019 14:46, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 03:44:23PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> +#define ID_ISAR6_JSCVT_SHIFT		0
>> +#define ID_ISAR6_DP_SHIFT		4
>> +#define ID_ISAR6_FHM_SHIFT		8
>> +#define ID_ISAR6_SB_SHIFT		12
>> +#define ID_ISAR6_SPECRES_SHIFT		16
>> +#define ID_ISAR6_BF16_SHIFT		20
>> +#define ID_ISAR6_I8MM_SHIFT		24
> 
>> @@ -399,6 +399,7 @@ static const struct __ftr_reg_entry {
>>   	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_ISAR4_EL1, ftr_generic_32bits),
>>   	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_ISAR5_EL1, ftr_id_isar5),
>>   	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_MMFR4_EL1, ftr_id_mmfr4),
> 
>> +	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_ISAR6_EL1, ftr_generic_32bits),
> 
> Using ftr_generic_32bits exposes the lowest-common-denominator for all
> 4-bit fields in the register, and I don't think that's the right thing
> to do here, because:
> 
> * We have no idea what ID_ISAR6 bits [31:28] may mean in future.
> 
> * AFAICT, the instructions described by ID_ISAR6.SPECRES (from the
>    ARMv8.0-PredInv extension) operate on the local PE and are not
>    broadcast. To make those work as a guest expects, the host will need
>    to do additional things (e.g. to preserve that illusion when a vCPU is
>    migrated from one pCPU to another and back).
> 
> Given that, think we should add an explicit ftr_id_isar6 which only
> exposes the fields that we're certain are safe to expose to a guest
> (i.e. without SPECRES).

Agree. Thanks for pointing this out. I recommended the usage of
generic_32bits table without actually looking at the feature
definitions.

Anshuman,

Sorry about this.

Cheers
Suzuki