| Message ID | 1384165175-16134-5-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:19:35AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > +ssize_t arch_print_cpu_modalias(struct device *dev, > + struct device_attribute *attr, > + char *buf) > +{ > + unsigned int caps; > + ssize_t n; > + int i; > + > + /* > + * With 32 features maximum (taking 5 bytes each to print), we don't > + * need to worry about overrunning the PAGE_SIZE sized buffer. > + */ > + n = sprintf(buf, "cpu:type:arm64:feature:"); I would use "aarch64" here instead of arm64 for consistency with the architecture mode, compiler triplet and ELF_PLATFORM definition in the kernel.
On 14 November 2013 16:29, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:19:35AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> +ssize_t arch_print_cpu_modalias(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_attribute *attr, >> + char *buf) >> +{ >> + unsigned int caps; >> + ssize_t n; >> + int i; >> + >> + /* >> + * With 32 features maximum (taking 5 bytes each to print), we don't >> + * need to worry about overrunning the PAGE_SIZE sized buffer. >> + */ >> + n = sprintf(buf, "cpu:type:arm64:feature:"); > > I would use "aarch64" here instead of arm64 for consistency with the > architecture mode, compiler triplet and ELF_PLATFORM definition in the > kernel. OK, I will change that. Regards, Ard,
arch/what again? Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote: >On 14 November 2013 16:29, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> >wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:19:35AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> +ssize_t arch_print_cpu_modalias(struct device *dev, >>> + struct device_attribute *attr, >>> + char *buf) >>> +{ >>> + unsigned int caps; >>> + ssize_t n; >>> + int i; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * With 32 features maximum (taking 5 bytes each to print), we >don't >>> + * need to worry about overrunning the PAGE_SIZE sized buffer. >>> + */ >>> + n = sprintf(buf, "cpu:type:arm64:feature:"); >> >> I would use "aarch64" here instead of arm64 for consistency with the >> architecture mode, compiler triplet and ELF_PLATFORM definition in >the >> kernel. > >OK, I will change that. > >Regards, >Ard,
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index c044548..50cd97f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ config ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE config HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE def_bool y +config ARCH_HAS_CPU_AUTOPROBE + def_bool y + source "mm/Kconfig" config XEN_DOM0 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c index 780a7aa..4774304 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c @@ -403,3 +403,23 @@ const struct seq_operations cpuinfo_op = { .stop = c_stop, .show = c_show }; + +ssize_t arch_print_cpu_modalias(struct device *dev, + struct device_attribute *attr, + char *buf) +{ + unsigned int caps; + ssize_t n; + int i; + + /* + * With 32 features maximum (taking 5 bytes each to print), we don't + * need to worry about overrunning the PAGE_SIZE sized buffer. + */ + n = sprintf(buf, "cpu:type:arm64:feature:"); + for (caps = elf_hwcap, i = 0; caps; caps >>= 1, i++) + if (caps & 1) + n += sprintf(&buf[n], ",%04X", i); + buf[n++] = '\n'; + return n; +}
This enables the generic implementation in drivers/base/cpu.c that allows modules to be loaded automatically based on the optional features supported (and advertised over udev) by the CPU. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++ arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)