[PATCH 01/12] arm64: cpufeatures: Correctly handle signed values

[Oliver Upton]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 05:42:33PM +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      | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 58 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..e52d2c2b757f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -140,12 +140,43 @@ void dump_cpu_features(void)
>  	pr_emerg("0x%*pb\n", ARM64_NCAPS, &system_cpucaps);
>  }
>  
> +#define __ARM64_EXPAND_RFV(reg, field, val)	reg##_##field##_##val

It might be a good idea to move this to sysreg.h and share it with other
callsites that manually concatenate at the moment. I added one instance
of this to ID_REG_LIMIT_FIELD_ENUM() in sys_regs.c, for example.

Kind of a nitpick, but it'd be nice to avoid churn if the underlying
naming scheme changes in the future. Otherwise this looks reasonable
to me.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver