From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFAFC433E0 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D686D65220 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:03:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D686D65220 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C344B325; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:03:37 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8XqOe8hWdV8A; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36574B3C2; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085B14B325 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:03:35 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D6dqEL3ZwhmA for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:03:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA054B2B4 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:03:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A77431B; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:03:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from C02TD0UTHF1T.local (unknown [10.57.51.12]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 918373F73C; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:03:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:03:20 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Fix __enable_mmu() for new TGRAN range values Message-ID: <20210308150232.GA14159@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> References: <1614954969-14338-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20210305145111.GA78884@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> <1f339512-34ac-9779-e534-bee6698b99aa@arm.com> <20210308133053.GA26128@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210308133053.GA26128@willie-the-truck> Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , Anshuman Khandual , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 01:30:53PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:24:21PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > On 3/5/21 8:21 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 08:06:09PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > >> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN_2_SUPPORTED_DEFAULT 0x0 > > >> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN_2_SUPPORTED_NONE 0x1 > > >> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN_2_SUPPORTED_MIN 0x2 > > >> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN_2_SUPPORTED_MAX 0x7 > > > > > > The TGRAN2 fields doesn't quite follow the usual ID scheme rules, so how > > > do we deteremine the max value? Does the ARM ARM say anything in > > > particular about them, like we do for some of the PMU ID fields? > > > > Did not find anything in ARM ARM, regarding what scheme TGRAN2 fields > > actually follow. I had arrived at more restrictive 0x7 value, like the > > usual signed fields as the TGRAN4 fields definitely do not follow the > > unsigned ID scheme. Would restricting max value to 0x3 (i.e LPA2) be a > > better option instead ? > > I don't think it helps much, as TGRAN64_2 doesn't even define 0x3. > > So I think this patch is probably the best we can do, but the Arm ARM could > really do with describing the scheme here. I agree, and I've filed a ticket internally to try to get this cleaned up. I suspect that the answer is that these are basically unsigned, with 0x2-0xf indicating presence, but I can't guarantee that. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm