[PATCH v2 01/23] arm64: cpufeature: Add cpucap for HPMN0

[Colton Lewis]

Oliver Upton <oliver.upton at linux.dev> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 06:25:38PM +0000, Colton Lewis wrote:
>> Oliver Upton <oliver.upton at linux.dev> writes:

>> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:13:01PM +0000, Colton Lewis wrote:
>> > > Add a capability for FEAT_HPMN0, whether MDCR_EL2.HPMN can specify 0
>> > > counters reserved for the guest.

>> > > This required changing HPMN0 to an UnsignedEnum in tools/sysreg
>> > > because otherwise not all the appropriate macros are generated to add
>> > > it to arm64_cpu_capabilities_arm64_features.

>> > > Signed-off-by: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis at google.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >   arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 8 ++++++++
>> > >   arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps       | 1 +
>> > >   arch/arm64/tools/sysreg        | 6 +++---
>> > >   3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> > > b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> > > index b34044e20128..278294fdc97d 100644
>> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> > > @@ -548,6 +548,7 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits  
>> ftr_id_mmfr0[] = {
>> > >   };

>> > >   static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
>> > > +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE,
>> > > ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_HPMN0_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> > >   	S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE,
>> > > ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DoubleLock_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> > >   	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE,
>> > > ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> > >   	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE,
>> > > ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>> > > @@ -2896,6 +2897,13 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities
>> > > arm64_features[] = {
>> > >   		.matches = has_cpuid_feature,
>> > >   		ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, FGT, FGT2)
>> > >   	},
>> > > +	{
>> > > +		.desc = "Allow MDCR_EL2.HPMN = 0",

>> > This feedback still stands...

>> > 		.desc = "HPMN0",

>> > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/aD4ijUaSGm9b2g5H@linux.dev/

>> Sorry for ignoring your previous feedback. I looked at the other .desc
>> fields and they had more descriptive English, so I think this one should
>> be more than "FEAT_HPMN0" for consistency.

>> If you insist I'll change it.

> I'm not exactly sold on the merits of using descriptive names for the
> capabilities, as the architecture extension names are exact terms that
> can be related back to documentation.

I'll change it.