From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752077AbeAWOwN (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:52:13 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:42730 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751863AbeAWOwM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:52:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:52:06 +0000 From: Dave Martin To: Suzuki K Poulose Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, ckadabi@codeaurora.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morse , jnair@caviumnetworks.com, Andre Przywara , Robin Murphy Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] arm64: capabilities: Update prototype for enable call back Message-ID: <20180123145204.GR22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20180123122809.16269-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20180123122809.16269-2-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180123122809.16269-2-suzuki.poulose@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 Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:27:54PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > From: Dave Martin > > We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities > available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored > the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to > accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with > stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d40fd1 > ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"), > there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability > struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single > capability. Update the prototype for enable to accept a const pointer. > > Cc: Will Deacon > Cc: Robin Murphy > Cc: Catalin Marinas > Cc: Mark Rutland > Cc: Andre Przywara > Cc: James Morse > Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin > [ Rebased to for-next/core converting more users ] > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 3 ++- > arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h | 4 +++- > arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 7 ++++--- > arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 14 ++++++-------- > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- > arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c | 3 ++- > arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 3 ++- > arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 2 +- > 8 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > index ac67cfc2585a..cefbd685292c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > @@ -97,7 +97,8 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities { > u16 capability; > int def_scope; /* default scope */ > bool (*matches)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, int scope); > - int (*enable)(void *); /* Called on all active CPUs */ > + /* Called on all active CPUs for all "available" capabilities */ Nit: Odd spacing? Also, "available" doesn't really make sense for errata workarounds. Maybe applicable would be a better word? > + int (*enable)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps); Alternatively, if the comment is liable to be ambiguous, maybe it would be better to delete it. The explicit argument type already makes this more self-documenting than previously. I don't feel that strongly either way though; probably not worth a respin unless you have other things to change. Also please note that I didn't test the original patch here (in case I didn't point that out already...) [...] Cheers ---Dave