[PATCH v3 02/13] arm64: cpufeatures: Correctly handle signed values
Will Deacon
will at kernel.org
Mon Dec 11 04:24:16 PST 2023
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:45:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Although we've had signed values for some features such as PMUv3
> and FP, the code that handles the comparaison with some limit
> has a couple of annoying issues:
>
> - the min_field_value is always unsigned, meaning that we cannot
> easily compare it with a negative value
>
> - it is not possible to have a range of values, let alone a range
> of negative values
>
> Fix this by:
>
> - adding an upper limit to the comparison, defaulting to all bits
> being set to the maximum positive value
>
> - ensuring that the signess of the min and max values are taken into
> account
>
> A ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS_NEG() macro is provided for signed features, but
> nothing is using it yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index f6d416fe49b0..5f3f62efebd5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
> u8 field_pos;
> u8 field_width;
> u8 min_field_value;
> + u8 max_field_value;
> u8 hwcap_type;
> bool sign;
> unsigned long hwcap;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 646591c67e7a..bc8787f28ffd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -140,12 +140,42 @@ void dump_cpu_features(void)
> pr_emerg("0x%*pb\n", ARM64_NCAPS, &system_cpucaps);
> }
>
> +#define __ARM64_MAX_POSITIVE(reg, field) \
> + ((reg##_##field##_SIGNED ? \
> + BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH - 1) : \
> + BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH)) - 1)
> +
> +#define __ARM64_MIN_NEGATIVE(reg, field) BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH - 1)
I'm struggling to grok these two macros. For example, let's say I have a
4-bit signed field. In that case, the maximum positive value is 7 (0b0111)
and the minimum negative value is -8 (0b1000), but the macros above appear
to give 0b1000 for both.
Will
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list