From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K. Poulose)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:02:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCHv3 08/11] arm64: Check for selected granule support
In-Reply-To: <561FBC99.9090501@arm.com>
References: <1444821634-1689-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <1444821634-1689-9-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <561EC58B.9080408@arm.com> <20151015104515.GE8825@leverpostej>
 <20151015112532.GA16125@e106634-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <561FBC99.9090501@arm.com>
Message-ID: <561FC00C.7010003@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 15/10/15 15:47, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 06:25 AM, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> +    /*
>> +     * Check to see if the CPU supports the requested pagesize
>> +     */
>> +    asm volatile("mrs %0, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1" : "=r" (aa64mmfr0_el1));
>> +    aa64mmfr0_el1 >>= ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN_SHIFT;
>> +    if ((aa64mmfr0_el1 & 0xf) != ID_AA64MMFR0_TGRAN_SUPPORTED) {
>> +        pr_efi_err(sys_table_arg, PAGE_SIZE_STR" granule not supported by the CPU\n");
>> +        return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
>> +    }
>
>
> This is definitely an improvement over my original hack job.
>
> I would like to add, that I actually think this should be in a new function
> "check_kernel_compatibility" (or whatever) that is called before handle_kernel_image.
>
> That is because I don't really think it belongs in handle_kernel_image which is
>  focused on relocation.  Plus, if you add another function, you can avoid the
> "Failed to relocate kernel" error that comes out following the granule not supported message.
> Further, checks like this in the future will have a place to live.
>
> Of course you will then need a matching stubbed out function for the normal arm kernel as well.


OK, I will drop it from this series then and can be worked as a separate patch.

Thanks
Suzuki