From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756789AbcDNQra (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:47:30 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44464 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756642AbcDNQr2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:47:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:47:27 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Suzuki K Poulose Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com, ynorov@caviumnetworks.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: Add helpers for detecting AArch32 support at EL0 Message-ID: <20160414164727.GK4584@arm.com> References: <1459445255-15653-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <1459445255-15653-4-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20160414163933.GG4584@arm.com> <570FC950.1070904@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <570FC950.1070904@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:46:08PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 14/04/16 17:39, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:27:31PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > >>Adds a helper to extract the support for AArch32 at EL0 > >> > >>Tested-by: Yury Norov > >>Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose > > >>+static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(u64 pfr0) > >>+{ > >>+ u32 val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_SHIFT); > >>+ > >>+ return val == ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_32BIT_64BIT; > > > >Should this be >=? What are the rules for this register? > > This feature value is kind of "FTR_EXACT" where, we don't know what the relationship > of the values are. Here is the list of possible values : > > 0001 EL0 can be executed in AArch64 state only. > 0010 EL0 can be executed in either AArch64 or AArch32 state. > > All the other values are reserved. So I believe "==" is better check. Yeah, and thinking about it some more, that makes sense. Thanks. Will