On 12.01.17 15:33:15, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 01:11:42PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > > Definition of cpu ranges are hard to read if the cpu variant is not > > zero. Provide MIDR_CPU_FULL_REV() macro to describe the full hardware > > revision of a cpu including variant and (minor) revision. > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrich...@cavium.com> > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 3 +++ > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 15 +++++++++------ > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 8 +++----- > > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > index 26a68ddb11c1..983e59cbdd54 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ > > (0xf << MIDR_ARCHITECTURE_SHIFT) | \ > > ((partnum) << MIDR_PARTNUM_SHIFT)) > > > > +#define MIDR_CPU_FULL_REV(var, rev) \ > > + (((var) << MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT) | (rev)) > > Minor nit, but could you rename this to MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV instead please? > The revision field *is* the bottom 4 bits, so "full" rev doesn't really > make a lot of sense.
Yeah, this is that I had in my first version. I wasn't sure on the naming, so I am fine with your proposal. Will resubmit. Thanks, -Robert
