Re: [RFC V2 1/3] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:56:05PM +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 48e7029f1054..12f0a5181bf2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -527,6 +527,21 @@ 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_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABL_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_DPFZS_SHIFT, 4, 0),

I only got this far in the patch, but why is this FTR_STRICT +
FTR_LOWER_SAFE? The behaviour of the cycle counter on an SPE management
event sounds like it would be fine to differ between cores, no?

Please go through all the new fields, bearing in mind that most of the
PMU stuff is per-CPU type rather than global.

Will