From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 312DFC433F5 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:43:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=bRuagYrQeg3fiJ8VsNbQVhb5zhXwEh0jCcNv5rYEvFw=; b=wlQKlg1KKXIrYL syn0Aruubal1unynBREiHcnTAGMnKq5ZFteDrBFlovUosHBmU7Q+5Bn74GdNF80mmFzH4gt6apfpq mWuIiGy28qAaQPwLKxWsiy1H16XucbsMmhdE0M+oUcDCox27J4KLumSgAO2z9rtY87eQPz4sAFgQf rVRWSgbiUe9Y/qMtaSLRbGAcZ6Flbfkr6M7lp/VbatZD5Tm75Bt/vdAD93CDxjtT4oJS/eI+t7IF/ M/765N0EF7slD60IoxsjOeNIOiofPEtRmfbdIDVdNi+vOvEWST66rJ5P8q2VMzl6yoALsToEykU/y /WFNHpIv3Pbec796i0GA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nhtYb-000eQH-91; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:42:45 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nhtYU-000eO4-CE for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:42:39 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625661595; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 06:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakrids (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D03B3F5A1; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 06:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 14:42:30 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Mark Brown Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Marc Zyngier , Suzuki K Poulose , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] arm64/sysreg: Generate definitions for SCTLR_EL1 Message-ID: References: <20220419104329.188489-1-broonie@kernel.org> <20220419104329.188489-9-broonie@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220422_064238_507267_9B8715D5 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 25.22 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:14:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:05:27AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:43:29AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Several fields which are defined in the current revision of DDI0487 but > > > which are not yet used by the kernel are left as RES1 in order to ensure > > > that the SCTLR_EL1_RES1 mask used for early initialisation of SCTLR_EL1 is > > > not changed. These are LSMAOE, nTLSMD, EIS, TSCXT and EOS. > > > I think that going forward we'll hit similar issues when adding new fields, so > > we probably want to distinguish "architecturally RESx" and "The kernel wants to > > treat these as RESx". > > > I suspect we should add those fields to the scripting, but (manually) add a > > definition to a header with both the architectural RES1 bits and the bits we're > > treating as RES1 even though they're now been allocated a purpose. > > > I'm not sure how to name that clearly, though. > > I think I'd come to a similar conclusion but as you say the naming is > annoying and in cases like these ones there's so few users and they're > oring in other bits so it might be more sensible to just or in these now > defined RES1 bits in the user, skipping out on the naming question > entirely - in this case the usage is in INIT_SCTLR_EL2_MMU_*. Looking > at it again now I'm inclined to go that way for this one. FWIW, I'm perfectly happy with adding those bits explicitly in the `INIT_SCTLR_EL*` definitions. The key thing I wanted is that as a policy, `_RES1` is purely the architecturally RES1 bits. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel