lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: Introduce ISAR6 CPU ID register
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 03:22:13PM +0000, Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose wrote:
> On 12/12/2019 14:46, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 03:44:23PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > +#define ID_ISAR6_JSCVT_SHIFT 0
> > > +#define ID_ISAR6_DP_SHIFT 4
> > > +#define ID_ISAR6_FHM_SHIFT 8
> > > +#define ID_ISAR6_SB_SHIFT 12
> > > +#define ID_ISAR6_SPECRES_SHIFT 16
> > > +#define ID_ISAR6_BF16_SHIFT 20
> > > +#define ID_ISAR6_I8MM_SHIFT 24
> >
> > > @@ -399,6 +399,7 @@ static const struct __ftr_reg_entry {
> > > ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_ISAR4_EL1, ftr_generic_32bits),
> > > ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_ISAR5_EL1, ftr_id_isar5),
> > > ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_MMFR4_EL1, ftr_id_mmfr4),
> >
> > > + ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_ISAR6_EL1, ftr_generic_32bits),
> >
> > Using ftr_generic_32bits exposes the lowest-common-denominator for all
> > 4-bit fields in the register, and I don't think that's the right thing
> > to do here, because:
> >
> > * We have no idea what ID_ISAR6 bits [31:28] may mean in future.
> >
> > * AFAICT, the instructions described by ID_ISAR6.SPECRES (from the
> > ARMv8.0-PredInv extension) operate on the local PE and are not
> > broadcast. To make those work as a guest expects, the host will need
> > to do additional things (e.g. to preserve that illusion when a vCPU is
> > migrated from one pCPU to another and back).
> >
> > Given that, think we should add an explicit ftr_id_isar6 which only
> > exposes the fields that we're certain are safe to expose to a guest
> > (i.e. without SPECRES).
>
> Agree. Thanks for pointing this out. I recommended the usage of
> generic_32bits table without actually looking at the feature
> definitions.

No worries; this is /really/ easy to miss!

Looking again, comparing to ARM DDI 0487E.a, there are a few other
things we should probably sort out:

* ID_DFR0 fields need more thought; we should limit what we expose here.
I don't think it's valid for us to expose TraceFilt, and I suspect we
need to add capping for debug features we currently emulate.

* ID_ISAR0[31:28] are RES0 in ARMv8, Reserved/UNK in ARMv7.
We should probably ftr_id_isar0 so we can hide those bits.
* ID_ISAR5[23:10] are RES0
We handle this already! :)

* ID_MMFR4.SpecSEI should be trated as higher safe.
We should update ftr_id_mmfr4 to handle this and other fields.

* ID_PFR0 is missing DIT and CSV2
We should probably add these (but neither RAS not AMU).

* ID_PFR2 is missing
We should probably add this for SSBS and CSV3.

Thanks,
Mark.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 17:32    [W:0.049 / U:5.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site