On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 05:48:59PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote: > From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > > Any fields not defined in an arm64_ftr_bits entry are propagated to the > system-wide register value in init_cpu_ftr_reg(), and while we require > that these strictly match for the sanity checks, we don't update them in > update_cpu_ftr_reg(). > > Generally, the lack of an arm64_ftr_bits entry indicates that the bits > are currently RES0 (as is the case for the upper 32 bits of all > supposedly 32-bit registers). > > A better default would be to use zero for the system-wide value of > unallocated bits, making all register checking consistent, and allowing > for subsequent simplifications to the arm64_ftr_bits arrays. > > This patch updates init_cpu_ftr_reg() to treat unallocated bits as RES0 > for the purpose of the system-wide safe value. These bits will still be > sanity checked with strict match requirements, as is currently the case. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
