On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 11:50:45AM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote: > On 2025/4/3 17:04, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > > On 31/03/2025 10:43, Yicong Yang wrote: > >> From: Yicong Yang <[email protected]> > >> > >> Instructions introduced by FEAT_{LS64, LS64_V} is controlled by > >> HCRX_EL2.{EnALS, EnASR}. Configure all of these to allow usage > >> at EL0/1. > >> > >> This doesn't mean these instructions are always available in > >> EL0/1 if provided. The hypervisor still have the control at > >> runtime. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h | 12 +++++++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h > >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h > >> index ebceaae3c749..0259941602c4 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h > >> @@ -57,9 +57,19 @@ > >> /* Enable GCS if supported */ > >> mrs_s x1, SYS_ID_AA64PFR1_EL1 > >> ubfx x1, x1, #ID_AA64PFR1_EL1_GCS_SHIFT, #4 > >> - cbz x1, .Lset_hcrx_\@ > >> + cbz x1, .Lskip_gcs_hcrx_\@ > >> orr x0, x0, #HCRX_EL2_GCSEn > >> +.Lskip_gcs_hcrx_\@: > > > > minor nit: For consistency, could we rename this "set_ls64", similar to > > "set_hcrx" ? > > > > IIUC, set_xxx really touches the registers and skip_xxx should just check and > prepare > the feature bits. so here using .Lskip_gcs_hrcx_\@ should be more proper and > consistent > with other places in el2_setup.h, like __init_el2_debug/__init_el2_fgt which > also use > .Lskip_xxx for skipping an unsupported feature?
fwiw, I think the label names are fine as you have them. Will
