Subject: [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64: alternative: Introduce feature for GICv3 CPU interface

From: [email-masked] (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:27:14 +0100

On 14/05/15 12:25, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 01:09:24PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Add a new item to the feature set (ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF)
>> to indicate that we have a system register GIC CPU interface
>>
>> This will help KVM switching to alternative instruction patching.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <[email-masked]>
>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email-masked]>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h |  8 +++++++-
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c      | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> index 6ae35d1..d9e57b5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> @@ -23,8 +23,9 @@
>>  
>>  #define ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE		0
>>  #define ARM64_WORKAROUND_DEVICE_LOAD_ACQUIRE	1
>> +#define ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF		2
>>  
>> -#define ARM64_NCAPS				2
>> +#define ARM64_NCAPS				3
>>  
>>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>  
>> @@ -37,6 +38,11 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
>>  			u32 midr_model;
>>  			u32 midr_range_min, midr_range_max;
>>  		};
>> +
>> +		struct {	/* Feature register checking */
>> +			u64 register_mask;
>> +			u64 register_value;
>> +		};
>>  	};
>>  };
>>  
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 3d9967e..b0bea2b3 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -22,7 +22,23 @@
>>  #include <asm/cpu.h>
>>  #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
>>  
>> +static bool
>> +has_id_aa64pfr0_feature(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
>> +{
>> +	u64 val;
>> +
>> +	val = read_cpuid(id_aa64pfr0_el1);
> 
> is this preferred compared to fishing it out of cpuinfo ?

Probably for the moment, yes. At some point, we should be able to have a
consolidated set of features, consistent across all CPUs in the system.
Once we have that, we should revisit this detection mecanism.

>> +	return (val & entry->register_mask) == entry->register_value;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
>> +	{
>> +		.desc = "system register GIC CPU interface",
>> +		.capability = ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF,
>> +		.matches = has_id_aa64pfr0_feature,
>> +		.register_mask = (0xf << 24),
>> +		.register_value = (1 << 24),
> 
> I don't know if it's worth defining these masks in some header file.
> The only other place I could see them used was in head.S.

Mark was looking at this a while ago. Maybe a task for a sleepless
night? ;-)

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...