[PATCH 1/7] arm64: introduce common ESR_ELx_* definitions

[Mark Rutland]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 04:57:53PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 04:42:04PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 04:23:20PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:04:14PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > Currently we have separate ESR_EL{1,2}_* macros, despite the fact that
> > > > the encodings are common. While encodings are architected to refer to
> > > > the current EL or a lower EL, the macros refer to particular ELs (e.g.
> > > > ESR_ELx_EC_DABT_EL0). Having these duplicate definitions is redundant,
> > > > and their naming is misleading.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch introduces common ESR_ELx_* macros that can be used in all
> > > > cases, in preparation for later patches which will migrate existing
> > > > users over. Some additional cleanups are made in the process:
> > > > 
> > > > * Suffixes for particular exception levelts (e.g. _EL0, _EL1) are
> > > >   replaced with more general _LOW and _CUR suffixes, matching the
> > > >   architectural intent.
> > > > 
> > > > * ESR_ELx_EC_WFx, rather than ESR_ELx_EC_WFI is introduced, as this
> > > >   EC encoding covers traps from both WFE and WFI. Similarly,
> > > >   ESR_ELx_WFx_ISS_WFE rather than ESR_ELx_EC_WFI_ISS_WFE is introduced.
> > > > 
> > > > * Multi-bit fields are given consistently named _SHIFT and _MASK macros.
> > > > 
> > > > * UL() is used for compatiblity with assembly files.
> > > > 
> > > > * Comments are added for currently unallocated ESR_ELx.EC encodings.
> > > > 
> > > > For fields other than ESR_ELx.EC, macros are only implemented for fields
> > > > for which there is already an ESR_EL{1,2}_* macro.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
> > > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell at linaro.org>
> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> > > 
> > > I assume this series would go in via the kvm tree. In which case, for
> > > the first two patches in the series:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Patches 3 and 4 also affect the arm64 core code and shouldn't affect
> > KVM. Can I get your ack for those too, or do you have any comments?
> 
> They look fine to me. For the first 4 patches:
> 
> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>

Thanks.

> (BTW, I'll start preparing the merging window next week, if we get
> conflicts, we may need to put the first 4 patches on some common branch;
> I don't expect any though)

Noted. I'll keep an eye out.

Mark.