From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:16:27 +0000 Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/13] arm64/kvm: use common sysreg definitions In-Reply-To: <20170224101650.GE1409@cbox> References: <1485885951-2747-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20170224101650.GE1409@cbox> Message-ID: <20170224121626.GC417@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:16:50AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:05:38PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Whenever we add new functionality involving new system registers, we need to > > add sys_reg() definitions so that we can access the registers regardless of > > whether the toolchain can assemble them. At the same time, we have to add > > duplicate definitions of the register encodings to KVM's sysreg tables, so that > > we can handle any configurable traps. This redundancy is unfortunate, and > > defining the encodings directly in the sysreg tables can make those tables > > difficult to read. > > > > This series attempts to address both of these issues by allowing us to use > > common sys_reg() mnemonics in to initialise KVM's sysreg tables. > > To that end, this series tries to make the canonical location > > for common sysreg encodings. > I did not do a full in-depth review, but I really like this overall > change and the changes to KVM look great to me. Cool; I'll respin+repost this once rc1's out. I'll have to prepare a prize for whoever's willing to verify the encodings. ;) Thanks, Mark.