[PATCH 1/2] arm64/sysreg: Move TRFCR definitions to sysreg

[James Clark]

On 04/08/2023 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:52:16AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
>> TRFCR_EL2_CX needs to become TRFCR_ELx_CX to avoid unnecessary
>> duplication and make the SysregFields block re-usable.
> 
> That field is only present in the EL2 version.  I would tend to leave
> the registers split for that reason, there's some minor potential for
> confusion if people refer to the sysreg file rather than the docs, or
> potentially confuse some future automation.  However that's not a super
> strongly held opinion.
> 

True, the potential for confusion is a good reason to not try to avoid
duplication. Probably helps if it is ever auto generated or validated as
well.

I could update it on the next version. But do I leave all the existing
_ELx usages in the code, or change them all to _EL1 (Except CX_EL2)? To
leave them as _ELx sysreg would look like this, even though _EL1 would
probably be more accurate:

  SysregFields TRFCR_EL2
  Res0	63:7
  UnsignedEnum	6:5	TS
  	0b0001	VIRTUAL
  	0b0010	GUEST_PHYSICAL
  	0b0011	PHYSICAL
  EndEnum
  Res0	4
  Field	3	CX
  Res0	2
  Field	1	E2TRE
  Field	0	E0TRE
  EndSysregFields

  SysregFields TRFCR_ELx
  Res0	63:7
  UnsignedEnum	6:5	TS
  	0b0001	VIRTUAL
  	0b0010	GUEST_PHYSICAL
  	0b0011	PHYSICAL
  EndEnum
  Res0	4:2
  Field	1	ExTRE
  Field	0	E0TRE
  EndSysregFields

  Sysreg	TRFCR_EL1	3	0	1	2	1
  Fields	TRFCR_ELx
  EndSysreg

  Sysreg	TRFCR_EL2	3	4	1	2	1
  Fields	TRFCR_EL2
  EndSysreg

  Sysreg TRFCR_EL12	3	5	1	2	1
  Fields	TRFCR_ELx
  EndSysreg


> Otherwise this checks out against DDI0601 2023-06:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org>

Thanks for the review