2024-05-24 03:37:08

by Yangyu Chen

Subject: [PATCH v2 3/3] RISC-V: hwprobe: not treat KEY_CPUPERF_0 as bitmask

Since the value in KEY_CPUPERF_0 is not bitmask, remove the wrong code
in hwprobe.h.

Signed-off-by: Yangyu Chen <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
index 630507dff5ea..f24cad22bbe1 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
@@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static inline bool hwprobe_key_is_bitmask(__s64 key)
switch (key) {
case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
- case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0:
return true;
}

--
2.45.1

2024-05-29 18:34:37

by Evan Green

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RISC-V: hwprobe: not treat KEY_CPUPERF_0 as bitmask

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:36 PM Yangyu Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Since the value in KEY_CPUPERF_0 is not bitmask, remove the wrong code
> in hwprobe.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yangyu Chen <[email protected]>

I'd expect a Fixes tag, and ideally some discussion on the reasoning
and ramifications of this change.

I posted the other possible fix, declaring a new key, at [1], mostly
so we could see the two options and discuss. I'm okay with either
patch.
-Evan

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/#u

> ---
> arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> index 630507dff5ea..f24cad22bbe1 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static inline bool hwprobe_key_is_bitmask(__s64 key)
> switch (key) {
> case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> - case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0:
> return true;
> }
>
> --
> 2.45.1
>