Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1379090

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: Add helpers for detecting AArch32 support at EL0

From Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: Add helpers for detecting AArch32 support at EL0
Date 2016-04-14 18:50 +0200
Message-ID <rnSCS-4Y2-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <riOzT-8pW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <riOzW-8pW-59@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnStc-4TB-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 14/04/16 17:39, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:27:31PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Adds a helper to extract the support for AArch32 at EL0
>>
>> Tested-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>

>> +static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(u64 pfr0)
>> +{
>> +	u32 val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_SHIFT);
>> +
>> +	return val == ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_32BIT_64BIT;
>
> Should this be >=? What are the rules for this register?

This feature value is kind of "FTR_EXACT" where, we don't know what the relationship
of the values are. Here is the list of possible values :

0001	EL0 can be executed in AArch64 state only.
0010	EL0 can be executed in either AArch64 or AArch32 state.

All the other values are reserved. So I believe "==" is better check.

Suzuki

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: Add helpers for detecting AArch32 support  at EL0 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: Add helpers for detecting AArch32 support  at EL0 Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com> - 2016-04-14 18:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: Add helpers for detecting AArch32 support  at EL0 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-04-14 18:50 +0200

csiph-web