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 73BB7C369A4 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:05:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=BrYys628v7gyQU+iCOA4NSuVKJtdYObrVwi45VsVPAE=; b=0xfMEPz5HkVToF4iYfPCrzhHeP KqOUPiIFXmXI7kxw7P2h7PBHJRVWUKsdxBerQleQjdV6TDkDq73kvZlH/ilRZOP900+YKtX+l8MWL g+HLhG+MU7jKI+t//T3vHdForEPDccIECWMKW31+QTg6uj2EdqKTPZbw2TAJmEuKyFHayM4l0uev2 9y76Eyo1aJDRYc9H+gUvsVWrXZMJGyisJr5WN4M+Fc0Rom/mihRGGqnoQFR+5fV0ANwaeWfJWs6iB JWRWS2rFCW28YwOGEhQsh8aNTuGq2BhJHU0STvf0qsEckZW8J5d8deNtZNe3qRqrPKQ8LMAH4Fjw2 hcWZLeXA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1u2AVN-00000004VNT-1ZSf; Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:04:49 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([172.234.252.31]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1u2ATb-00000004V8M-3iwW for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:03:01 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE64E4515A; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16087C4CEE5; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:02:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744124579; bh=LKvavUYgpGR64gZmKbXgsDUtOXVLw5hcAok6WXy6l2w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=F1A0ss6HLnm9h4iZmE3GGxq7KgMcTItcndCwA9TrvJ15cN8gdHxIAtMQuUDLaqm99 0KZ6n+1XpUrmR3N9EPmN0TR/w26ve6ew02oqFcqz3gfPkFmpt4aGOF8xKDnhNuXLhn lFA4g4QrP3/0RGYEzYOt4WAbQB5svqsyZ51z6tH/tSP6b8QDM01UCHimmHW7RvDfyy JPH67kVjPetJUMEiZ+7TTXxRqD0a/O/khNPzP6UWtVz2T6SjAgfTK+QCzYNMKwMn2i W+4Jvfo01tAc+8CqOD38twNOzVomSZs1vMnjZsRjOerTk4w/Obn6QBi50mY0sUhcyz +1wy+SIS1t7cw== Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:02:53 +0200 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Mark Rutland Cc: Marc Zyngier , Thomas Gleixner , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Sascha Bischoff , Timothy Hayes , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/24] arm64: cpucaps: Add GCIE capability Message-ID: References: <20250408-gicv5-host-v1-0-1f26db465f8d@kernel.org> <20250408-gicv5-host-v1-16-1f26db465f8d@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250408_080259_945494_EEF4BDE9 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.88 ) 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: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:26:11PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:50:15PM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > Implement the GCIE capability as a strict boot cpu capability to > > detect whether architectural GICv5 support is available in HW. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi > > Cc: Will Deacon > > Cc: Catalin Marinas > > Cc: Marc Zyngier > > This looks good; I have a minor consistency/bikeshedding concern below. > > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 7 +++++++ > > arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > index 9c4d6d552b25cb3a31d1fb267bd73d3f82513e69..8c60591633f3d435ad9b80a10e484f26af328964 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > @@ -3041,6 +3041,13 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = { > > .matches = has_pmuv3, > > }, > > #endif > > + { > > + .desc = "GCIE", > > + .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_STRICT_BOOT_CPU_FEATURE, > > + .capability = ARM64_HAS_GCIE, > > + .matches = has_cpuid_feature, > > + ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(ID_AA64PFR2_EL1, GCIE, IMP) > > + }, > > I reckon it's worth making the desc a bit clearer, e.g. "GICv5 CPU > interface". > > It might be worth cleaning up the existing ARM64_HAS_GIC_CPUIF_SYSREGS > feature, e.g. making that have "GICv3 CPU interface" as its desc. > > Likewise, could make the names consistent, e.g. have: > > ARM64_HAS_GICV3_CPUIF > ARM64_HAS_GICV5_CPUIF > > ... ? This makes sense to me, I will do it in preparation for v2. Thanks, Lorenzo