public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/7] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:02:42 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a382200e-00c4-405a-a417-f4c09bd91fb7@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241210164144.GA16039@willie-the-truck>



On 12/10/24 22:11, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:04:24AM +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 718728a85430..bd4d85f5dd92 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -530,6 +530,21 @@ 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_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABL_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_DPFZS_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_EBEP_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ITE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABLE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_PMICNTR_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SPMU_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_WRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_BRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SYSPMUID_SHIFT, 8, 0),
>> +	ARM64_FTR_END,
>> +};
> 
> I think I mentioned this on an earlier series, but it would be useful to
> see some justification in the commit message as to why some of these
> features are considered STRICT vs NONSTRICT and why LOWER_SAFE is
> preferred over EXACT.

I have updated the commit message regarding STRICT vs NONSTRICT as Mark had
mentioned earlier (see below). But just wondering about FTR_LOWER_SAFE. All
similar fields have been marked as FTR_LOWER_SAFE.

> 
> For example, why is EBEP strict whereas other PMU-related fields aren't?

IIUC there are two types of fields here.

- Feature presence     (EBEP, ITE, ABLE etc)		---> FTR_STRICT
- Debug resource count (WRPs, BRPs, CTX_CMPs etc)	---> FTR_NONSTRICT

> Why is the CTX_CMPs field treated differently to the same field in DFR0?

There is mismatch not only for CTX_CMPs but for WRPs and BRPs as well. As
mentioned earlier, being resource count type, I believe these should be
marked as FTR_NONSTRICT in existing DFR0 as well. I could send a patch
fixing DFR0 first.

> 
> I'm not saying the above table is wrong, it just looks arbitrary without
> the justification.

Please find the updated version (v3) for this patch here for reference.

--------------
[PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register

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. The register fields have been marked as FTR_STRICT, unless there is
a known variation in practice.

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 6ce71f444ed8..0dc22fde104e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -534,6 +534,21 @@ 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_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABL_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_DPFZS_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_EBEP_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ITE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABLE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_PMICNTR_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SPMU_SHIFT, 4, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_WRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_BRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SYSPMUID_SHIFT, 8, 0),
+	ARM64_FTR_END,
+};
+
 static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_mvfr0[] = {
 	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, MVFR0_EL1_FPRound_SHIFT, 4, 0),
 	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, MVFR0_EL1_FPShVec_SHIFT, 4, 0),
@@ -720,10 +735,6 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_single32[] = {
 	ARM64_FTR_END,
 };
 
-static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_raz[] = {
-	ARM64_FTR_END,
-};
-
 #define __ARM64_FTR_REG_OVERRIDE(id_str, id, table, ovr) {	\
 		.sys_id = id,					\
 		.reg = 	&(struct arm64_ftr_reg){		\
@@ -796,7 +807,7 @@ static const struct __ftr_reg_entry {
 
 	/* Op1 = 0, CRn = 0, CRm = 5 */
 	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64dfr0),
-	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, ftr_raz),
+	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, ftr_id_aa64dfr1),
 
 	/* Op1 = 0, CRn = 0, CRm = 6 */
 	ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64isar0),
-- 
2.25.1
--------------
Changes in V3:
 
- Updated commit message regarding FTR_STRICT
- Updated ID_AA64DFR1_EL1.ABLE as FTR_NONSTRICT


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-12-11  4:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-28  5:34 [PATCH V2 0/7] arm64/hw_breakpoint: Enable FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 1/7] arm64/sysreg: Update register fields for ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 2/7] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for MDSELR_EL1 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 3/7] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for HDFGRTR2_EL2 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 4/7] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for HDFGWTR2_EL2 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 5/7] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register Anshuman Khandual
2024-12-10 16:41   ` Will Deacon
2024-12-10 16:56     ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-10 17:05       ` Will Deacon
2024-12-11  4:32     ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2024-12-19 15:49       ` Will Deacon
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 6/7] arm64/boot: Enable EL2 requirements for FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-10-28  5:34 ` [PATCH V2 7/7] arm64/hw_breakpoint: Enable FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-12-10 16:59 ` [PATCH V2 0/7] " Mark Rutland
2024-12-11  8:34   ` Anshuman Khandual

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=a382200e-00c4-405a-a417-f4c09bd91fb7@arm.com \
    --to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox