| Message ID | 1403795926-17139-2-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > The MIDR_EL1 register is composed of a number of bitfields, and uses of > the fields has so far involved open-coding of the shifts and masks > required. > > This patch adds shifts and masks for each of the MIDR_EL1 subfields, and > also provides accessors built atop of these. Existing uses within > cputype.h are updated to use these accessors. > > The read_cpuid_part_number macro is modified to return the extracted > bitfield rather than returning the value in-place with all other fields > (including revision) masked out, to better match the other accessors. > As the value is only used in comparison with the *_CPU_PART_* macros > which are similarly updated, and these values are never exposed to > userspace, this change should not affect any functionality. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> We need to make sure this doesn't conflict horribly with the missing arm64 hunk from Russell's series in this area. Ideally, we'd take Russell's patch as part of this series. Will
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 03:01:56PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > The MIDR_EL1 register is composed of a number of bitfields, and uses of > > the fields has so far involved open-coding of the shifts and masks > > required. > > > > This patch adds shifts and masks for each of the MIDR_EL1 subfields, and > > also provides accessors built atop of these. Existing uses within > > cputype.h are updated to use these accessors. > > > > The read_cpuid_part_number macro is modified to return the extracted > > bitfield rather than returning the value in-place with all other fields > > (including revision) masked out, to better match the other accessors. > > As the value is only used in comparison with the *_CPU_PART_* macros > > which are similarly updated, and these values are never exposed to > > userspace, this change should not affect any functionality. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > We need to make sure this doesn't conflict horribly with the missing arm64 > hunk from Russell's series in this area. Ideally, we'd take Russell's patch > as part of this series. The "missing arm64 hunk" was intentionally dropped as I couldn't see, and still don't see a justification for it.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 03:06:22PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 03:01:56PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > The MIDR_EL1 register is composed of a number of bitfields, and uses of > > > the fields has so far involved open-coding of the shifts and masks > > > required. > > > > > > This patch adds shifts and masks for each of the MIDR_EL1 subfields, and > > > also provides accessors built atop of these. Existing uses within > > > cputype.h are updated to use these accessors. > > > > > > The read_cpuid_part_number macro is modified to return the extracted > > > bitfield rather than returning the value in-place with all other fields > > > (including revision) masked out, to better match the other accessors. > > > As the value is only used in comparison with the *_CPU_PART_* macros > > > which are similarly updated, and these values are never exposed to > > > userspace, this change should not affect any functionality. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > > > We need to make sure this doesn't conflict horribly with the missing arm64 > > hunk from Russell's series in this area. Ideally, we'd take Russell's patch > > as part of this series. > > The "missing arm64 hunk" was intentionally dropped as I couldn't see, > and still don't see a justification for it. Okey doke then, I just wanted to make sure we didn't get conflicts between our trees. Will
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h index 27f54a7..ec5e41c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h @@ -36,15 +36,34 @@ __val; \ }) +#define MIDR_REVISION_MASK 0xf +#define MIDR_REVISION(midr) ((midr) & MIDR_REVISION_MASK) +#define MIDR_PARTNUM_SHIFT 4 +#define MIDR_PARTNUM_MASK (0xfff << MIDR_PARTNUM_SHIFT) +#define MIDR_PARTNUM(midr) \ + (((midr) & MIDR_PARTNUM_MASK) >> MIDR_PARTNUM_SHIFT) +#define MIDR_ARCHITECTURE_SHIFT 16 +#define MIDR_ARCHITECTURE_MASK (0xf << MIDR_ARCHITECTURE_SHIFT) +#define MIDR_ARCHITECTURE(midr) \ + (((midr) & MIDR_ARCHITECTURE_MASK) >> MIDR_ARCHITECTURE_SHIFT) +#define MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT 20 +#define MIDR_VARIANT_MASK (0xf << MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT) +#define MIDR_VARIANT(midr) \ + (((midr) & MIDR_VARIANT_MASK) >> MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT) +#define MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR_SHIFT 24 +#define MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR_MASK (0xff << MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR_SHIFT) +#define MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR(midr) \ + (((midr) & MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR_MASK) >> MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR_SHIFT) + #define ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM 0x41 #define ARM_CPU_IMP_APM 0x50 -#define ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8 0xD0F0 -#define ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION 0xD000 -#define ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A53 0xD030 -#define ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57 0xD070 +#define ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8 0xD0F +#define ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION 0xD00 +#define ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57 0xD07 +#define ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A53 0xD03 -#define APM_CPU_PART_POTENZA 0x0000 +#define APM_CPU_PART_POTENZA 0x000 #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ @@ -65,12 +84,12 @@ static inline u64 __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_mpidr(void) static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_implementor(void) { - return (read_cpuid_id() & 0xFF000000) >> 24; + return MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR(read_cpuid_id()); } static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_part_number(void) { - return (read_cpuid_id() & 0xFFF0); + return MIDR_PARTNUM(read_cpuid_id()); } static inline u32 __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_cachetype(void)