All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/7] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:02:42 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a382200e-00c4-405a-a417-f4c09bd91fb7@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241210164144.GA16039@willie-the-truck>



On 12/10/24 22:11, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:04:24AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This adds required field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, and also drops dummy
>> ftr_raz[] array which is now redundant. These register fields will be used
>> to enable increased breakpoint and watchpoint registers via FEAT_Debugv8p9
>> later.
>>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 718728a85430..bd4d85f5dd92 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -530,6 +530,21 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
>>  	ARM64_FTR_END,
>>  };
>>  
>> +static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr1[] = {
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABL_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_DPFZS_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_EBEP_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ITE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABLE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_PMICNTR_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SPMU_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_WRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_BRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SYSPMUID_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_END,
>> +};
> 
> I think I mentioned this on an earlier series, but it would be useful to
> see some justification in the commit message as to why some of these
> features are considered STRICT vs NONSTRICT and why LOWER_SAFE is
> preferred over EXACT.

I have updated the commit message regarding STRICT vs NONSTRICT as Mark had
mentioned earlier (see below). But just wondering about FTR_LOWER_SAFE. All
similar fields have been marked as FTR_LOWER_SAFE.

> 
> For example, why is EBEP strict whereas other PMU-related fields aren't?

IIUC there are two types of fields here.

- Feature presence     (EBEP, ITE, ABLE etc)		---> FTR_STRICT
- Debug resource count (WRPs, BRPs, CTX_CMPs etc)	---> FTR_NONSTRICT

> Why is the CTX_CMPs field treated differently to the same field in DFR0?

There is mismatch not only for CTX_CMPs but for WRPs and BRPs as well. As
mentioned earlier, being resource count type, I believe these should be
marked as FTR_NONSTRICT in existing DFR0 as well. I could send a patch
fixing DFR0 first.

> 
> I'm not saying the above table is wrong, it just looks arbitrary without
> the justification.

Please find the updated version (v3) for this patch here for reference.

--------------
[PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register

This adds required field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, and also drops dummy
ftr_raz[] array which is now redundant. These register fields will be used
to enable increased breakpoint and watchpoint registers via FEAT_Debugv8p9
later. The register fields have been marked as FTR_STRICT, unless there is
a known variation in practice.

Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 6ce71f444ed8..0dc22fde104e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -534,6 +534,21 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
 	ARM64_FTR_END,
 };
 
+static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr1[] = {
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABL_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_DPFZS_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_EBEP_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ITE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABLE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_PMICNTR_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SPMU_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_WRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_BRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SYSPMUID_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_END,
+};
+
 static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_mvfr0[] = {
 	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, MVFR0_EL1_FPRound_SHIFT, 4, 0),
 	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, MVFR0_EL1_FPShVec_SHIFT, 4, 0),
@@ -720,10 +735,6 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_single32[] = {
 	ARM64_FTR_END,
 };
 
-static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_raz[] = {
-	ARM64_FTR_END,
-};
-
 #define __ARM64_FTR_REG_OVERRIDE(id_str, id, table, ovr) {	\
 		.sys_id = id,					\
 		.reg = 	&(struct arm64_ftr_reg){		\
@@ -796,7 +807,7 @@ static const struct __ftr_reg_entry {
 
 	/* Op1 = 0, CRn = 0, CRm = 5 */
 	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64dfr0),
-	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, ftr_raz),
+	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, ftr_id_aa64dfr1),
 
 	/* Op1 = 0, CRn = 0, CRm = 6 */
 	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64isar0),
-- 
2.25.1
--------------
Changes in V3:
 
- Updated commit message regarding FTR_STRICT
- Updated ID_AA64DFR1_EL1.ABLE as FTR_NONSTRICT

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-12-11  4:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-28  5:34 [PATCH V2 0/7] arm64/hw_breakpoint: Enable FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 1/7] arm64/sysreg: Update register fields for ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 2/7] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for MDSELR_EL1 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 3/7] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for HDFGRTR2_EL2 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 4/7] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for HDFGWTR2_EL2 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 5/7] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register Anshuman Khandual
2024-12-10 16:41   ` Will Deacon
2024-12-10 16:56     ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-10 17:05       ` Will Deacon
2024-12-11  4:32     ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2024-12-19 15:49       ` Will Deacon
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 6/7] arm64/boot: Enable EL2 requirements for FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 7/7] arm64/hw_breakpoint: Enable FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-12-10 16:59 ` [PATCH V2 0/7] " Mark Rutland
2024-12-11  8:34   ` Anshuman Khandual

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=a382200e-00c4-405a-a417-f4c09bd91fb7@arm.com \
    --to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.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.