Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] CPUCFG emulation on older Loongson64 cores

[WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>]

On 5/3/20 6:33 PM, WANG Xuerui wrote:

> This patch series brings the CPUCFG instruction to older Loongson64
> cores, enabling a unified way to query processor characteristics on
> Loongson64 systems. A detailed explanation may be found in the last
> commit.
>
> One unresolved point is how to best introduce machtype-specific bits
> into the generic MIPS code, namely the cpu probing and trap handler
> parts. I have been struggling over whether to lift this logic into
> arch/mips/kernel, but the instruction's encoding (reusing LWC2 opcode)
> might be too invasive to be useful to other MIPS platforms. What do
> people think is the best way forward?
>
> v2:
>
> - Fixed one more typo in loongson_regs.h
> - Merged simulate_loongson3_csr and simulate_loongson3_csr_cpucfg into
>    one (simulate_loongson3_cpucfg), per Huacai's suggestion
>
> WANG Xuerui (4):
>    MIPS: Loongson64: fix typos in loongson_regs.h
>    MIPS: Loongson64: define offsets and known revisions for some CPUCFG
>      features
>    MIPS: define more Loongson CP0.Config6 and CP0.Diag feature bits
>    MIPS: emulate CPUCFG instruction on older Loongson64 cores
>
>   arch/mips/Kconfig                             |  11 ++
>   arch/mips/include/asm/cpu-info.h              |   9 ++
>   .../include/asm/mach-loongson64/cpucfg-emul.h |  67 +++++++++
>   .../asm/mach-loongson64/loongson_regs.h       |  29 +++-
>   arch/mips/include/asm/mipsregs.h              |   6 +
>   arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c                  | 129 ++++++++++++++++++
>   arch/mips/kernel/traps.c                      |  45 ++++++
>   arch/mips/loongson64/Makefile                 |   1 +
>   arch/mips/loongson64/cpucfg-emul.c            |  80 +++++++++++
>   9 files changed, 372 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 arch/mips/include/asm/mach-loongson64/cpucfg-emul.h
>   create mode 100644 arch/mips/loongson64/cpucfg-emul.c
>
Just a friendly ping.

What is the status of this series? I know that I borked the threading of 
replies, I can resend if it's the only thing holding the series.

And I think the patch may well need to be reorganized, but no replies 
yet. I'm not a professional kernel developer, and any review is appreciated!