From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Clarify argument passed to enable call back
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:42:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180122124214.GA28589@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180117174220.7959-2-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 05:42:19PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities
> available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored
> the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to
> accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with
> stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d40fd1
> ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"),
> there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability
> struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single
> capability. Changing the prototype is quite an invasive change and
> will be part of a future series. For now, add a comment to clarify
> what is expected.
>
> Suggested-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index ac67cfc2585a..c049e28274d4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,14 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
> u16 capability;
> int def_scope; /* default scope */
> bool (*matches)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, int scope);
> - int (*enable)(void *); /* Called on all active CPUs */
> + /*
> + * For each @capability set in CPU hwcaps, @enable() is called on all
> + * active CPUs with const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities * as argument.
its argument.
> + * It is upto the callback (especially when multiple entries for the
s/upto/up to/
> + * same capability exists) to determine if any action should be taken
s/exists/exit/
> + * based on @matches() applies to thie CPU.
s/thie/this/
Still, the second half of the sentence doesn't really make a lot of
sense. Instead of:
"to determine if any action should be taken based on @matches() applies
to this CPU"
how about:
"to determine if any action should be taken based on the result of
@matches() for the local CPU."
Otherwise:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave.martin@arm.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
mark.rutland@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Clarify argument passed to enable call back
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:42:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180122124214.GA28589@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180117174220.7959-2-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 05:42:19PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities
> available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored
> the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to
> accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with
> stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d40fd1
> ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"),
> there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability
> struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single
> capability. Changing the prototype is quite an invasive change and
> will be part of a future series. For now, add a comment to clarify
> what is expected.
>
> Suggested-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index ac67cfc2585a..c049e28274d4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,14 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
> u16 capability;
> int def_scope; /* default scope */
> bool (*matches)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, int scope);
> - int (*enable)(void *); /* Called on all active CPUs */
> + /*
> + * For each @capability set in CPU hwcaps, @enable() is called on all
> + * active CPUs with const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities * as argument.
its argument.
> + * It is upto the callback (especially when multiple entries for the
s/upto/up to/
> + * same capability exists) to determine if any action should be taken
s/exists/exit/
> + * based on @matches() applies to thie CPU.
s/thie/this/
Still, the second half of the sentence doesn't really make a lot of
sense. Instead of:
"to determine if any action should be taken based on @matches() applies
to this CPU"
how about:
"to determine if any action should be taken based on the result of
@matches() for the local CPU."
Otherwise:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-22 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-17 17:42 [PATCH v2 0/2] arm64: Run enable method for errata work arounds on late CPUs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 17:42 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 17:42 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Clarify argument passed to enable call back Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 17:42 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 12:42 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-01-22 12:42 ` Will Deacon
2018-01-17 17:42 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: Run enable method for errata work arounds on late CPUs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 17:42 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-18 11:45 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Dave Martin
2018-01-18 11:45 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-18 12:00 ` Robin Murphy
2018-01-18 12:00 ` Robin Murphy
2018-01-18 12:08 ` Robin Murphy
2018-01-18 12:08 ` Robin Murphy
2018-01-18 14:21 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-18 14:21 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-18 14:25 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-18 14:25 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-18 18:31 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-18 18:31 ` 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=20180122124214.GA28589@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.