Re: [PATCH v2 07/22] arm64: Keep track of CPU feature registers

[Catalin Marinas]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:56:14AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 08/10/15 10:55, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> >On 07/10/15 18:16, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:01:56PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> >>>diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>index 1ae8b24..d42ad90 100644
> >>>--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>@@ -58,8 +58,442 @@ static void update_mixed_endian_el0_support(struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info)
> >>>      mixed_endian_el0 &= id_aa64mmfr0_mixed_endian_el0(info->reg_id_aa64mmfr0);
> 
> >>>+ * sys_reg() encoding.
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * We track only the following space:
> >>>+ * Op0 = 3, Op1 = 0, CRn = 0, CRm = [1 - 7], Op2 = [0 - 7]
> >>>+ * Op0 = 3, Op1 = 3, CRn = 0, CRm = 0, Op2 = { 1, 7 }     (CTR, DCZID)
> >>>+ * Op0 = 3, Op1 = 3, CRn = 14, CRm = 0, Op2 = 0        (CNTFRQ)
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * The space (3, 0, 0, {1-7}, {0-7}) is arranged in a 2D array op1_0,
> >>>+ * indexed by CRm and Op2. Since not all CRm's have fully allocated Op2's
> >>>+ * arm64_reg_table[CRm-1].n indicates the largest Op2 tracked for CRm.
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * Since we have limited number of entries with Op1 = 3, we use linear search
> >>>+ * to find the reg.
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ */
> >>>+static struct arm64_ftr_reg* get_arm64_sys_reg(u32 sys_id)
> >>>+{
> >>>+    int i;
> >>>+    u8 op2, crn, crm;
> >>>+    u8 op1 = sys_reg_Op1(sys_id);
> >>>+
> >>>+    if (sys_reg_Op0(sys_id) != 3)
> >>>+        return NULL;
> >>>+    switch (op1) {
> >>>+    case 0:
> >>>+
> >>>+        crm = sys_reg_CRm(sys_id);
> >>>+        op2 = sys_reg_Op2(sys_id);
> >>>+        crn = sys_reg_CRn(sys_id);
> >>>+        if (crn || !crm || crm > 7)
> >>>+            return NULL;
> >>>+        if (op2 < op1_0[crm - 1].n &&
> >>>+            op1_0[crm - 1].regs[op2].sys_id == sys_id)
> >>>+            return &op1_0[crm - 1].regs[op2];
> >>>+        return NULL;
> >>>+    case 3:
> >>>+        for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(op1_3); i++)
> >>>+            if (op1_3[i].sys_id == sys_id)
> >>>+                return &op1_3[i];
> >>>+    }
> >>>+    return NULL;
> >>>+}
> >>
> >>For this function, do we ever expect to be called with an invalid
> >>sys_id? You could add a BUG_ON(!ret) here.
> >>
> >
> >It could be called for an id which Reserved RAZ in the id range, we
> >plan to emulate. i.e, (3, 0, 0, [0-7], [0-7]).
> >See emulate_sys_reg(u32 id, u64 *valp) in Patch 20/22.
> >Since we don't track them, we return NULL here..
> >We could BUG_ON() all the other cases (e.g, MIDR and the other
> >classes).
> >
> >Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> Actually, the error handling is left to the users of the function.
> We do a BUG_ON() in the caller. e.g, init/update_cpu_ftr_reg can't
> accept a NULL and BUGs. While the emulate_sys_reg() issues the call
> only for the emualted feature registers(excluding MIDR/REVIDR etc),
> so a NULL is perfectly acceptable for them.

OK, please leave the NULL checking in the caller then.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/