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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE742C433F5 for ; Wed, 25 May 2022 09:29:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=g+ki2GVfnXjSZFAvd2S4GxKzhqIZKfqqa96kfilC4rc=; b=lYMTTft1EmFQrP Q8fJiEJcSRkto+TcbLqbz99BEze6z2sv+twcUdG5ALce93ShIPIvvlaXGMdAbucNVh2giWxlE4aQG wB7I0qNnh+c3v9LAw53Z6OHacYBMWcu/zooF5bRyMlHF9+G7VCnCshBX4oeKwnEsKmXQ2DGb0Vv2M 5eC3KNh5E2vMLQ/F20Xh+oz2jiQ3aCRBspNXBUUTuFdI33qjISs/Q0nYYOAEMgWn3cxshlKtIzoot 3mK/dk4UMJTZ4l9keaPAhkrnMPsme2LiNWz5tEZYcdgWfbIunnfqnWz1EmaKOpdgzaducrDgIyqbb gD6S8BYvxMxkriRH1qvQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ntnJG-00AaA2-Ku; Wed, 25 May 2022 09:28:06 +0000 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org ([145.40.68.75]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ntnJD-00Aa9T-R7 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 25 May 2022 09:28:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB8CB81D11; Wed, 25 May 2022 09:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1D55C385B8; Wed, 25 May 2022 09:27:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1653470877; bh=uiDwphCgnty7WlMMn+Z9dO+uq82bHzNV3DzThJy8Q5M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WCI4jOMxxcCCkspi4isz2DsbXPuw+w5sBb+zIXHE/3W15UWyRysrPUmrOXuaXZmi9 VtjlDbCpkgsML+3tv29ub8eScDu3ejtgqZCGhM5KXqNI2L08SmG/UzkwZRpwBTCjxh jugDRI4Dx0csp5F9+iJPyM4t7Uv9kkqAsiX4erGwSwl77KPD8vzDoNsIK4WQf04+fE Klovt+U69UzHBc9SV+MoX6BrOsBUx+SoLejg4dZDMbWrAMg3saaOZowID/Y3eyN7RH MFwY2fQThqVPG+SiMeIzsBxPD/RKzkZDf4HCIH5OT8iLG2ncS/BXG1wD3nVOmWjxB7 bkScc8a7OVh4w== Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 10:27:52 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Mark Rutland Cc: Mark Brown , Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64/sysregs: Align field names in ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 with architecture Message-ID: <20220525092751.GA19473@willie-the-truck> References: <20220518145750.251387-1-broonie@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220525_022804_066159_262DA907 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.88 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 03:57:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > The naming scheme the architecture uses for the fields in ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 > > does not align well with kernel conventions, using as it does a lot of > > MixedCase in various arrangements. In preparation for automatically > > generating the defines for this register rename the defines used to match > > what is in the architecture. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown > > --- > > > > I am not entirely convinced if the best approach here is to deviate from > > the kernel naming convention as this does or to follow the architecture > > as we've decided in other cases, I don't really mind but would like some > > feedback before going ahead and sorting out the remaining issues with > > this register. > > It's unfortunate the architecture itself doesn't follow a consistent pattern. > :/ > > I don't personally have strong feelings here. I'm happy with either: > > (a) Matching the case to the architectural names, even if that means some > fields are MixedCase, as with this patch > > (b) Always using ALLCAPS for ID reg field definitions. > > Catalin/Marc/Will, any preference? I don't really see what we gain by changing this stuff, other than it making it harder to apply stable backports automatically. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel