Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 11:18:12AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/22/24 21:26, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 10:06:00AM +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.

> >> +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,
> >> +};
> >> +
> > 
> > Is there some general principle that has been applied here? e.g. is this
> > STRICT unless we know of variation in practice?
> 
> Yes, that's correct. STRICT unless there is a known variation in practice.

Please mention that somewhere, e.g. in the commit message.

> > e.g. it seems a bit odd that ABLE cannot vary while the number of
> > breakpoints can...
> But all these (ABL_CMPs, CTX_CMPs, WRPs, BRPs) are marked as FTR_NONSTRICT.
> Would not that allow ABL_CMPs to vary as well ?

I asked about ABLE, not ABL_CMPs.

ABL_CMPs is marked as FTR_NONSTRICT, but ABLE is marked as FTR_STRICT.

> Although the existing break-point numbers are currently marked FTR_STRICT,
> should they be changed first ?
> 
> static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
> 	...................
> 	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>         ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_WRPs_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>         ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRPs_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> 	...................
> }

My point was that the above didn't seem to be logically consistent; I
think you didn't handle ABLE as you should have.

Mark.