Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] arm64: Add BBM Level 2 cpu feature

["Mikołaj Lenczewski" <miko.lenczewski@arm.com>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 02:46:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 12:51:32PM +0100, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 12:05:05PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 09:51:02AM +0000, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
> > > > +	 * whether the MIDR check passes. This is because we specifically
> > > > +	 * care only about a stricter form of BBML2 (one guaranteeing noabort),
> > > > +	 * and so the MMFR2 check is pointless (all implementations passing the
> > > > +	 * MIDR check should also pass the MMFR2 check).
> > > 
> > > I think there's at least one implementation that behaves as
> > > BBML2-noabort but does not have the ID field advertising BBML2.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, I put "should" instead of "will" because of the AmpereOne
> > situation, but I didn't want to "name and shame". Should I explicitly
> > call this out? Or would you like me to soften the vocabulary here to imply
> > that as long as the MIDR passes, the MMFR2 check is not important?
> 
> I missed the "should" part. Anyway, I would just drop the explanation
> from "This is because...".
> 
> -- 
> Catalin

OK, not a problem! Will drop it.

-- 
Kind regards,
Mikołaj Lenczewski