linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: suzuki.poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K Poulose)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 06/22] arm64: capabilities: Unify the verification
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:51:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180313115120.17256-7-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180313115120.17256-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>

Now that each capability describes how to treat the conflicts
of CPU cap state vs System wide cap state, we can unify the
verification logic to a single place.

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 5adacd39eb02..d671db5012c6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -1298,6 +1298,58 @@ enable_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps)
 	}
 }
 
+/*
+ * Run through the list of capabilities to check for conflicts.
+ * If the system has already detected a capability, take necessary
+ * action on this CPU.
+ *
+ * Returns "false" on conflicts.
+ */
+static bool
+__verify_local_cpu_caps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps_list)
+{
+	bool cpu_has_cap, system_has_cap;
+	const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps;
+
+	for (caps = caps_list; caps->matches; caps++) {
+		cpu_has_cap = __this_cpu_has_cap(caps_list, caps->capability);
+		system_has_cap = cpus_have_cap(caps->capability);
+
+		if (system_has_cap) {
+			/*
+			 * Check if the new CPU misses an advertised feature,
+			 * which is not safe to miss.
+			 */
+			if (!cpu_has_cap && !cpucap_late_cpu_optional(caps))
+				break;
+			/*
+			 * We have to issue cpu_enable() irrespective of
+			 * whether the CPU has it or not, as it is enabeld
+			 * system wide. It is upto the call back to take
+			 * appropriate action on this CPU.
+			 */
+			if (caps->cpu_enable)
+				caps->cpu_enable(caps);
+		} else {
+			/*
+			 * Check if the CPU has this capability if it isn't
+			 * safe to have when the system doesn't.
+			 */
+			if (cpu_has_cap && !cpucap_late_cpu_permitted(caps))
+				break;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (caps->matches) {
+		pr_crit("CPU%d: Detected conflict for capability %d (%s), System: %d, CPU: %d\n",
+			smp_processor_id(), caps->capability,
+			caps->desc, system_has_cap, cpu_has_cap);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 /*
  * Check for CPU features that are used in early boot
  * based on the Boot CPU value.
@@ -1320,25 +1372,10 @@ verify_local_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps)
 		}
 }
 
-static void
-verify_local_cpu_features(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps_list)
+static void verify_local_cpu_features(void)
 {
-	const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps = caps_list;
-	for (; caps->matches; caps++) {
-		if (!cpus_have_cap(caps->capability))
-			continue;
-		/*
-		 * If the new CPU misses an advertised feature, we cannot proceed
-		 * further, park the cpu.
-		 */
-		if (!__this_cpu_has_cap(caps_list, caps->capability)) {
-			pr_crit("CPU%d: missing feature: %s\n",
-					smp_processor_id(), caps->desc);
-			cpu_die_early();
-		}
-		if (caps->cpu_enable)
-			caps->cpu_enable(caps);
-	}
+	if (!__verify_local_cpu_caps(arm64_features))
+		cpu_die_early();
 }
 
 static void verify_sve_features(void)
@@ -1365,20 +1402,8 @@ static void verify_sve_features(void)
  */
 static void verify_local_cpu_errata_workarounds(void)
 {
-	const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps = arm64_errata;
-
-	for (; caps->matches; caps++) {
-		if (cpus_have_cap(caps->capability)) {
-			if (caps->cpu_enable)
-				caps->cpu_enable(caps);
-		} else if (caps->matches(caps, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)) {
-			pr_crit("CPU%d: Requires work around for %s, not detected"
-					" at boot time\n",
-				smp_processor_id(),
-				caps->desc ? : "an erratum");
-			cpu_die_early();
-		}
-	}
+	if (!__verify_local_cpu_caps(arm64_errata))
+		cpu_die_early();
 }
 
 static void update_cpu_errata_workarounds(void)
@@ -1402,7 +1427,7 @@ static void __init enable_errata_workarounds(void)
 static void verify_local_cpu_capabilities(void)
 {
 	verify_local_cpu_errata_workarounds();
-	verify_local_cpu_features(arm64_features);
+	verify_local_cpu_features();
 	verify_local_elf_hwcaps(arm64_elf_hwcaps);
 
 	if (system_supports_32bit_el0())
-- 
2.14.3

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-03-13 11:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-13 11:50 [PATCH v4 00/22] arm64: Rework cpu capabilities handling Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:50 ` [PATCH v4 01/22] arm64: capabilities: Update prototype for enable call back Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 02/22] arm64: capabilities: Move errata work around check on boot CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 03/22] arm64: capabilities: Move errata processing code Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 04/22] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 05/22] arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 07/22] arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given mask Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 08/22] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for grouping features and errata work arounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 09/22] arm64: capabilities: Split the processing of " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-22 16:44   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 10/22] arm64: capabilities: Allow features based on local CPU scope Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 11/22] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-21 15:07   ` Dave Martin
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 12/22] arm64: capabilities: Introduce weak features based on local CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 13/22] arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI detection to boot-time CPUs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 14/22] arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 15/22] arm64: capabilities: Change scope of VHE to Boot CPU feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-21 15:18   ` Dave Martin
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 16/22] arm64: capabilities: Clean up midr range helpers Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 17/22] arm64: Add helpers for checking CPU MIDR against a range Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 18/22] arm64: capabilities: Add support for checks based on a list of MIDRs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 19/22] arm64: capabilities: Handle shared entries Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-22 16:43   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 20/22] arm64: Add MIDR encoding for Arm Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 21/22] arm64: Delay enabling hardware DBM feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-21 15:22   ` Dave Martin
2018-03-13 11:51 ` [PATCH v4 22/22] arm64: Add work around for Arm Cortex-A55 Erratum 1024718 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-21 15:31   ` Dave Martin
2018-03-22 16:42     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-26 11:53 ` [PATCH v4 00/22] arm64: Rework cpu capabilities handling Will Deacon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180313115120.17256-7-suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).