On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 06:47:46PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 14/04/16 18:38, Will Deacon wrote: > >Hi Suzuki, > > > >On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:24:10PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > >>Add scope parameter to the arm64_cpu_capabilities::matches(), > >>so that this can be reused for checking the capability on a > >>given CPU vs the system wide. By default, the system uses > >>'system' wide values for setting the CPU_HWCAPs and ELF_HWCAPs. > > >> static bool __maybe_unused > >>-is_affected_midr_range(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry) > >>+is_affected_midr_range(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int > >>__unused) > > > >Maybe it would be better to WARN if somebody passes SCOPE_SYSTEM, rather > >than silently treat it as per-cpu? > > Should we worry about errata's which may not necessarily depend on per CPU or > a local capability (GIC) ?
Why would they be calling is_affected_midr_range? > If not, we could add a WARN after passing down LOCAL > scope for errata. But if we don't care about errata that aren't local, then why would we warn on LOCAL? > Right now we always do SCOPE_SYSTEM from update_cpu_capabilities(), even for > cpu_errata table. There is no specific reason for that. I'm totally confused. Can you define SCOPE_SYSTEM and SCOPE_LOCAL for me, please? Will
