lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/16] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata
From
Date
On 29/01/18 17:14, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:31:18PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 26/01/18 11:47, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:28:01PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> So far we have had separate routes for triggering errata and feature
>>>
>>> "triggering errata" ? ;)
>>>
>>
>> :-). Should have been "triggering errata and feature capability *checks*.
>>
>>> Maybe "[...] for determining whether to activate errata workarounds and
>>> whether to enable feature capabilities."
>>>
>>
>>
>>>> capabilities. Also, we never allowed "features" based on local CPU
>>>> and "errata" based on System wide safe registers. This patch
>>>> groups the handling of errata and features and also allows them
>>>> to have all the possible scopes.
>>>>
>>>> So, we now run through the arm64_features and arm64_errata:
>>>
>>> when?
>>
>> with this patch.
>
> I mean, when at runtime?

Sorry, I thought that was evident from the comment below :

>
>>> What about late cpus?
>>>
>>
>> We don't detect any new capabilities on them. They continue to get
>> verified against the enabled capabilities.
>>
>>>> 1) with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU filter on each boot time enabeld CPUs,
>>>> via update_cpu_local_capabilities().

Here ^^. Earlier we ran only through the errata list. But now, we
run through errata and the features, using a type filter of SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU.

It also said :

2) with SCOPE_SYSTEM filter only once after all boot time enabled
CPUs are active.

(2) happens from setup_cpu_features(), just like it was done earlier, but
with a filter of SCOPE_SYSTEM.

>>>
>>> "each [...] enabeld CPUs" -> "each [...] enabled CPU"
>>>
>>> Also, changing "boot time" -> "boot-time" helps avoid this being misread
>>> as "on each boot", which could be taken to mean "each time a CPU comes
>>> online". I'm guessing that's not the intended meaning here.
>>

>>>
>>> }
>>>> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(arm64_const_caps_ready);
>>>> @@ -1422,9 +1435,7 @@ void __init setup_cpu_features(void)
>>>> u32 cwg;
>>>> int cls;
>>>> - /* Set the CPU feature capabilies */
>>>> - setup_feature_capabilities();
>>>> - enable_errata_workarounds();
>>>> + setup_system_capabilities();
>>>> mark_const_caps_ready();
>>>> setup_elf_hwcaps(arm64_elf_hwcaps);
>>>
>>> I wonder whether we could unify the elf hwcaps handling too.
>>
>> I was thinking about it today. The only catch is how do we know
>> if we have "the capability", as it is spread across multiple bitmasks.
>> (HWCAP, COMPAT_HWCAP, COMPAT_HWCAP2).
>
> An easy-ish solution might be to maintain our own bitmap in the style
> of cpu_hwcaps, and set bits in parallel with the elf_hwcap etc. bits.
> Or, add a method that knows how to set/query the appropriate bit.
>
> I guess we could do this later. It's certainly not urgent.

Yes, I understand.

Cheers
Suzuki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-29 18:23    [W:0.102 / U:1.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site