Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: cpufeature: use cpucap naming

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, broonie@kernel.org,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: cpufeature: use cpucap naming
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 13:54:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a5xjpcly.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230601100812.2303944-4-mark.rutland@arm.com>

On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 11:08:11 +0100,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> To more clearly align the various users of the cpucap enumeration, this patch
> changes the cpufeature code to use the term `cpucap` in favour of `cpu_hwap`.
> This more clearly aligns with other users of the cpucaps, and avoids confusion
> with the ELF hwcaps.
> 
> There should be no functional change as a result of this patch; this is
> purely a renaming exercise.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h |  2 +-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c       | 38 ++++++++++++++--------------
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> index 56911691bef05..7f332854c961e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static inline void cpu_replace_ttbr1(pgd_t *pgdp, pgd_t *idmap)
>  		 * up (i.e. cpufeature framework is not up yet) and
>  		 * latter only when we enable CNP via cpufeature's
>  		 * enable() callback.
> -		 * Also we rely on the cpu_hwcap bit being set before
> +		 * Also we rely on the system_cpucap bit being set before
>  		 * calling the enable() function.
>  		 */
>  		ttbr1 |= TTBR_CNP_BIT;

nit: Shout this be moved to the first patch instead? It only differs
by being singular instead of plural.

On the other hand, I have a series that eradicates this code
altogether, so I can't say I care deeply! ;-)

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel