From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:29:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: advertise availability of CRC and crypto instructions In-Reply-To: References: <20131218100321.GC4360@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131218105541.GE4360@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131218112713.GA28112@arm.com> <20131218114211.GF4360@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131218120306.GC28112@arm.com> <52B1B0E0.6030104@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20131218172956.GG28112@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:13:52PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 18 December 2013 15:27, Christopher Covington wrote: > > I do not think that Russell is the source of the confusion. Ard wrote, "The > > idea is that a binary built for ARM will have access to the extended > > instructions which ARM64 offers to ARM32 binaries running in 32 bit > > compatibility mode (such as AES, SHAx etc)." I think s/ARM64/ARMv8/ is > > necessary to make the statement correct, and hopefully less confusing. > > > > My apologies for adding to the confusion (or creating it in the first place). > > However, the bottom line is that, as the 32 bit and 64 bit kernels are > both able to support userland processes running in the execution state > that has retroactively been dubbed 'AArch32', they should both honor > the same contract with AArch32 userland on how to discover CPU > capabilities at runtime. For the time being, I merged the first two patches for AArch64 support. I'm not merging the compat one yet as this should strictly follow the arch/arm support. Thanks. -- Catalin