[PATCH V2 15/46] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for PFAR_EL1

[Eric Auger]

Hi Anshuman,

On 12/19/24 4:13 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/18/24 21:12, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Hi Anshuman,
>>
>> On 12/10/24 06:52, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This adds register fields for PFAR_EL1 as per the definitions based on
>>> DDI0601 2024-09.
>>>
>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual at arm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 7 +++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
>>> index 18b814ff2c41..e33edb41721a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
>>> @@ -3533,3 +3533,10 @@ Field	5	F
>>>  Field	4	P
>>>  Field	3:0	Align
>>>  EndSysreg
>>> +
>>> +Sysreg	PFAR_EL1	3	0	6	0	5
>>> +Field	63	NS
>>> +Field	62	NSE
>>> +Res0	61:56
>>> +Field	55:0	PA
>> Just wondering: part of the PA definition depends on FEAT_D128 or
>> FEAT_LPA and the reset field value is UNKNOWN if the feature is not
>> available. Shouldn't introduce separate fields directly?
> Generated PFAR_EL1_PA_MASK aka GENMASK_ULL(55, 0) should cover all the
> cases for PA i.e 48 bits, LPA, D128 etc. Although individual use cases
> will have to trim the mask subsequently as required.
> 
> Are you suggesting something like the following instead where the user
> will have to concatenate these fields selectively to find the required
> PA mask ?
> 
> Field	55:52	PA_D128
> Field	51:48	PA_LPA
> Field	47:0	PA
Yes that was my suggestion.

Thanks

Eric