The first commit moves the register to sysreg because I add the EL12
version in the second commit. I couldn't really think of the best way
to make it fit in sysreg without any changes, because all the fields are
shared between EL1 and EL2 except for the CX bit which was named
differently for that reason in the original definition. The CX bit only
exists in TRFCR_EL2.
The test results have some single spurious EL2 addresses, but I don't
think this is an issue with this patchset because it happens in the
host-userspace case which maintains the existing programming of
TRFCR. It's likely an issue with the model but I will follow it up
separately.
James Clark (2):
arm64/sysreg: Move TRFCR definitions to sysreg
coresight: Allow guests to be traced when FEAT_TRF and VHE are present
arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 12 -----
arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 26 ++++++++++
.../coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h | 2 +-
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-priv.h | 3 ++
5 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--
2.34.1
TRFCR_EL2_CX needs to become TRFCR_ELx_CX to avoid unnecessary
duplication and make the SysregFields block re-usable.
Signed-off-by: James Clark <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 12 ----------
arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
.../coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
index b481935e9314..fc9a5a09fa04 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
@@ -171,8 +171,6 @@
#define SYS_RGSR_EL1 sys_reg(3, 0, 1, 0, 5)
#define SYS_GCR_EL1 sys_reg(3, 0, 1, 0, 6)
-#define SYS_TRFCR_EL1 sys_reg(3, 0, 1, 2, 1)
-
#define SYS_TCR_EL1 sys_reg(3, 0, 2, 0, 2)
#define SYS_APIAKEYLO_EL1 sys_reg(3, 0, 2, 1, 0)
@@ -382,7 +380,6 @@
#define SYS_VTTBR_EL2 sys_reg(3, 4, 2, 1, 0)
#define SYS_VTCR_EL2 sys_reg(3, 4, 2, 1, 2)
-#define SYS_TRFCR_EL2 sys_reg(3, 4, 1, 2, 1)
#define SYS_HDFGRTR_EL2 sys_reg(3, 4, 3, 1, 4)
#define SYS_HDFGWTR_EL2 sys_reg(3, 4, 3, 1, 5)
#define SYS_HAFGRTR_EL2 sys_reg(3, 4, 3, 1, 6)
@@ -640,15 +637,6 @@
/* Safe value for MPIDR_EL1: Bit31:RES1, Bit30:U:0, Bit24:MT:0 */
#define SYS_MPIDR_SAFE_VAL (BIT(31))
-#define TRFCR_ELx_TS_SHIFT 5
-#define TRFCR_ELx_TS_MASK ((0x3UL) << TRFCR_ELx_TS_SHIFT)
-#define TRFCR_ELx_TS_VIRTUAL ((0x1UL) << TRFCR_ELx_TS_SHIFT)
-#define TRFCR_ELx_TS_GUEST_PHYSICAL ((0x2UL) << TRFCR_ELx_TS_SHIFT)
-#define TRFCR_ELx_TS_PHYSICAL ((0x3UL) << TRFCR_ELx_TS_SHIFT)
-#define TRFCR_EL2_CX BIT(3)
-#define TRFCR_ELx_ExTRE BIT(1)
-#define TRFCR_ELx_E0TRE BIT(0)
-
/* GIC Hypervisor interface registers */
/* ICH_MISR_EL2 bit definitions */
#define ICH_MISR_EOI (1 << 0)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
index 65866bf819c3..fe1f824977d9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
+++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
@@ -2495,3 +2495,25 @@ Field 5 F
Field 4 P
Field 3:0 Align
EndSysreg
+
+SysregFields TRFCR_ELx
+Res0 63:7
+UnsignedEnum 6:5 TS
+ 0b0001 VIRTUAL
+ 0b0010 GUEST_PHYSICAL
+ 0b0011 PHYSICAL
+EndEnum
+Res0 4
+Field 3 CX
+Res0 2
+Field 1 ExTRE
+Field 0 E0TRE
+EndSysregFields
+
+Sysreg TRFCR_EL1 3 0 1 2 1
+Fields TRFCR_ELx
+EndSysreg
+
+Sysreg TRFCR_EL2 3 4 1 2 1
+Fields TRFCR_ELx
+EndSysreg
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
index 703b6fcbb6a5..257e5c1a4b52 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
@@ -1145,7 +1145,7 @@ static void cpu_detect_trace_filtering(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata)
/* If we are running at EL2, allow tracing the CONTEXTIDR_EL2. */
if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
- trfcr |= TRFCR_EL2_CX;
+ trfcr |= TRFCR_ELx_CX;
drvdata->trfcr = trfcr;
}
--
2.34.1
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:52:16AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> TRFCR_EL2_CX needs to become TRFCR_ELx_CX to avoid unnecessary
> duplication and make the SysregFields block re-usable.
That field is only present in the EL2 version. I would tend to leave
the registers split for that reason, there's some minor potential for
confusion if people refer to the sysreg file rather than the docs, or
potentially confuse some future automation. However that's not a super
strongly held opinion.
Otherwise this checks out against DDI0601 2023-06:
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
On 04/08/2023 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:52:16AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
>
>> TRFCR_EL2_CX needs to become TRFCR_ELx_CX to avoid unnecessary
>> duplication and make the SysregFields block re-usable.
>
> That field is only present in the EL2 version. I would tend to leave
> the registers split for that reason, there's some minor potential for
> confusion if people refer to the sysreg file rather than the docs, or
> potentially confuse some future automation. However that's not a super
> strongly held opinion.
>
True, the potential for confusion is a good reason to not try to avoid
duplication. Probably helps if it is ever auto generated or validated as
well.
I could update it on the next version. But do I leave all the existing
_ELx usages in the code, or change them all to _EL1 (Except CX_EL2)? To
leave them as _ELx sysreg would look like this, even though _EL1 would
probably be more accurate:
SysregFields TRFCR_EL2
Res0 63:7
UnsignedEnum 6:5 TS
0b0001 VIRTUAL
0b0010 GUEST_PHYSICAL
0b0011 PHYSICAL
EndEnum
Res0 4
Field 3 CX
Res0 2
Field 1 E2TRE
Field 0 E0TRE
EndSysregFields
SysregFields TRFCR_ELx
Res0 63:7
UnsignedEnum 6:5 TS
0b0001 VIRTUAL
0b0010 GUEST_PHYSICAL
0b0011 PHYSICAL
EndEnum
Res0 4:2
Field 1 ExTRE
Field 0 E0TRE
EndSysregFields
Sysreg TRFCR_EL1 3 0 1 2 1
Fields TRFCR_ELx
EndSysreg
Sysreg TRFCR_EL2 3 4 1 2 1
Fields TRFCR_EL2
EndSysreg
Sysreg TRFCR_EL12 3 5 1 2 1
Fields TRFCR_ELx
EndSysreg
> Otherwise this checks out against DDI0601 2023-06:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
Thanks for the review
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:55:19PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 13:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 09:52:16AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> >> TRFCR_EL2_CX needs to become TRFCR_ELx_CX to avoid unnecessary
> >> duplication and make the SysregFields block re-usable.
> > That field is only present in the EL2 version. I would tend to leave
> > the registers split for that reason, there's some minor potential for
> > confusion if people refer to the sysreg file rather than the docs, or
> > potentially confuse some future automation. However that's not a super
> > strongly held opinion.
> True, the potential for confusion is a good reason to not try to avoid
> duplication. Probably helps if it is ever auto generated or validated as
> well.
> I could update it on the next version. But do I leave all the existing
> _ELx usages in the code, or change them all to _EL1 (Except CX_EL2)? To
> leave them as _ELx sysreg would look like this, even though _EL1 would
> probably be more accurate:
> SysregFields TRFCR_EL2
You could just leave this as _ELx and simply not reference it for the
EL1 definition which is proably fair? Perhaps with a comment saying why
there's an expanded definition for EL1. I don't think it fundamentally
matters which way it's done so long as EL1 stays a subset of the EL2
definition (which seems likely, and we can always revisit should that
happen).