From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965895AbdKPWyq (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:54:46 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:45200 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965521AbdKPWyj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:54:39 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZZFv0lMRXkwIAsfpZAVpfrHyJaVhOQCw79cjthSXgQ/YtFNUKhuAFD2+AnRnnS5wKw4VquHQ== Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:54:34 +0000 From: Alex Matveev To: Yury Norov Cc: Robin Murphy , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Andi Kleen , Kees Cook , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Nick Desaulniers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Hackmann , Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Sami Tolvanen , Matthias Kaehlcke , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Maxim Kuvyrkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/18] arm64: make mrs_s and msr_s macros work with LTO Message-ID: <20171116225434.691af6cf@delmar.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20171116212920.wixsxoccznyef4aq@yury-thinkpad> References: <20171115213428.22559-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20171115213428.22559-12-samitolvanen@google.com> <20171116115433.GG9361@arm.com> <20171116130742.wijnukjetoupi4hc@yury-thinkpad> <20171116212920.wixsxoccznyef4aq@yury-thinkpad> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:29:20 +0300 Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 01:55:31PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > Given that this whole mrs_s infrastructure is a workaround for older > > assemblers which don't support the "S____" > > syntax for arbitrary unnamed system registers (which IIRC was a > > fairly late addition to the architecture), the only way it could be > > "fixed" on the toolchain side is by removing all those older > > toolchains from existence. Good luck with that ;) > > > > In *theory*, it might be possible to do something similar to what > > we do with CONFIG_BROKEN_GAS_INST to detect offending assemblers > > and only define and use these macros when necessary (hopefully > > Clang and other LTO-capable toolchains do accept the proper > > syntax), but I've no idea how invasive or difficult that might turn > > out to be. > > Thank you Robin. The "S____" is the feature I > was looking for. I'm not going to remove old toolchain from every user > machine - I believe if I do, I'll be put into jail finally. :) > > But I think we should use this syntax for {read,write}_sysreg_s > and other functions if assembler supports it. The existing mrs_s/msr_s > machinery will be deprecated then, and it will be generally good. Well, "S_..." is how registers were accessed before implementation of mrs_s/msr_s - here's the patch from mid-2014 by Catalin Marinas: commit 72c583951526 Author: Catalin Marinas Date: Thu Jul 24 14:14:42 2014 +0100 arm64: gicv3: Allow GICv3 compilation with older binutils GICv3 introduces new system registers accessible with the full msr/mrs syntax (e.g. mrs x0, Sop0_op1_CRm_CRn_op2). However, only recent binutils understand the new syntax. This patch introduces msr_s/mrs_s assembly macros which generate the equivalent instructions above and converts the existing GICv3 code (both drivers/irqchip/ and arch/arm64/kernel/). The question is - is it OK to drop compatibility with old versions of binutils (which were already "older" back in 2014)? It's not my call to make. If yes, then it should be possible to make this change more aesthetic by reverting to "S" (however, it will affect more places as now some users of register definitions expect them to be numbers, not "S" strings). Going the way of CONFIG_BROKEN_GAS_INST and selecting between "S" and mrs_s/msr_s is also possible, but then we'd have to keep both mechanisms around. I'm not quite sure what that would give us. Regards, Alex