From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K Poulose) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 11:41:51 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 02/26] arm64: cpufeature: Add cpufeature for IRQ priority masking In-Reply-To: <54ff6127-928d-99a3-a6e9-59799628ca87@arm.com> References: <1527241772-48007-1-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com> <1527241772-48007-3-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com> <54ff6127-928d-99a3-a6e9-59799628ca87@arm.com> Message-ID: <3f0afa54-8e98-798e-68dc-bbbc74bd9e19@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 25/05/18 11:39, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > On 25/05/18 11:36, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> On 25/05/18 11:17, Julien Thierry wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 25/05/18 11:04, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>>> On 25/05/18 10:49, Julien Thierry wrote: >>>>> Add a cpufeature indicating whether a cpu supports masking interrupts >>>>> by priority. >>>> >>>> How is this different from the SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF cap ? Is it just >>>> the description ? >>> >>> More or less. >>> >>> It is just to have an easier condition in the rest of the series. Basically the PRIO masking feature is enabled if we have a GICv3 CPUIF working *and* the option was selected at build time. Before this meant that I was checking for the GIC_CPUIF cap inside #ifdefs (and putting alternatives depending on that inside #ifdefs as well). >>> >>> Having this as a separate feature feels easier to manage in the code. It also makes it clearer at boot time that the kernel will be using irq priorities (although I admit it was not the initial intention): >>> >>> [??? 0.000000] CPU features: detected: IRQ priority masking >>> >>> >>> But yes that new feature will be detected only if SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF gets detected as well. >> >> Well, you could always wrap the check like : >> >> static inline bool system_has_irq_priority_masking(void) >> { >> ?????return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_YOUR_CONFIG) && cpus_have_const_cap(HWCAP_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF)); >> } >> >> and use it everywhere. >> > > Yes, but I can't use that in the asm parts that use alternatives and would need to surround them in #ifdef... :\ I thought there is _ALTERNATIVE_CFG() to base the alternative depend on a CONFIG_xxx ? Doesn't that solve the problem ? Suzuki