On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:49 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:43:39 +0000,
James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 12:49 pm, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:32:41 +0000,
James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx>
There are a few entries particularly at the end of the file that aren't
in order. To avoid confusion, add a comment that might help new entries
to be added in the right place.
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
index b081b54d6d22..4ba167089e2a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
+++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
@@ -48,6 +48,8 @@
# feature that introduces them (eg, FEAT_LS64_ACCDATA introduces enumeration
# item ACCDATA) though it may be more taseful to do something else.
+# Please try to keep entries in this file sorted by sysreg
encoding.
+
Sysreg OSDTRRX_EL1 2 0 0 0 2
Res0 63:32
Field 31:0 DTRRX
"Do as I say, don't do as I do".
I don't think this makes any sense if we don't actually sort the file
the first place.
M.
I think it's ok if it avoids review comments that new entries should
be sorted. Or maybe we do the opposite and the comment should say this
file is allowed to be unsorted...
The better option would be to add the comment *and* sort the file.
Leading by example has some value, it seems.
IME, it's better if documentation just states what the tools enforce.
Can't we add something like this to the header generation:
$ grep '^Sysreg\s' arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | sort -n -k3 -k4 -k5 -k6 -k7 -c
sort: -:22: disorder: Sysreg ID_MMFR4_EL1 3 0 0
2 6
Rob