Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-73312-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:11:30 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, maz@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
	acme@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>,
	Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>,
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>,
	Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] arm64/sysreg/tools: Move TRFCR definitions to
 sysreg
Message-ID: <18995343-e43e-4e92-a97d-3df74ec6ddb7@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240220100924.2761706-1-james.clark@arm.com>
 <20240220100924.2761706-4-james.clark@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wa66B86kvsE+u+/E"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240220100924.2761706-4-james.clark@arm.com>


--wa66B86kvsE+u+/E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:09:13AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
> Add separate definitions for ELx and EL2 as TRFCR_EL1 doesn't have CX.
> This also mirrors the previous definition so no code change is required.

This is also converting to automatic generation in the process.

> +SysregFields TRFCR_EL2
> +Res0	63:7
> +UnsignedEnum	6:5	TS
> +	0b0000	USE_TRFCR_EL1_TS
> +	0b0001	VIRTUAL
> +	0b0010	GUEST_PHYSICAL
> +	0b0011	PHYSICAL
> +EndEnum
> +Res0	4
> +Field	3	CX
> +Res0	2
> +Field	1	E2TRE
> +Field	0	E0HTRE
> +EndSysregFields

This has exactly one user and I'd not expect more so why have a separate
SysregFields?

> +# TRFCR_EL1 doesn't have the CX bit so redefine it without CX instead of
> +# using a shared definition between TRFCR_EL2 and TRFCR_EL1

This comment is reflecting the default state?

> +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

These are generally sorted by encoding (simiarly to how sysreg.h was
sorted historically).

--wa66B86kvsE+u+/E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmXUzzEACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CQWAf/aD2427fNk360iRhg6pTosQgT0c+SaeDdLiO2QPiJqOQRiI4OQTlMpHOg
KiSUIyzOV4tvIlc9v79q8DBHGkPqTWnwjdKAb/sicVgy2z0lsaHAF6NeqKbXYO7k
Mt+VhXBJ+UeT0+VW9u6IbHQrrSU8s38uLBmE8ug8NTAVtytIsOI93FO8gpwtgqPk
KBfruF9VtUoBXd/AAowPQYf4oa6AUhv+9mWgENaydDV7LrtgTOCpKZ4C8l16R5/6
fCExQ3f3MKaaWy9W29qY/fNnDttFZtrTDT2FN4NNou0aAredkBxoUbzNAQhOCJD9
w159Rk9+frryVxXJ4NYgdgKPiOc2FQ==
=Slmu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wa66B86kvsE+u+/E--