Hi Catalin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:43 AM
> To: Justin He (Arm Technology China) <justin...@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org>; Mark Rutland
> <mark.rutl...@arm.com>; James Morse <james.mo...@arm.com>; Marc
> Zyngier <m...@kernel.org>; Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org>; Kirill A.
> Shutemov <kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com>; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> m...@kvack.org; Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>; Borislav
> Petkov <b...@alien8.de>; H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com>; x...@kernel.org;
> Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-
> foundation.org>; hejia...@gmail.com; Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China)
> <kaly....@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/4] arm64: cpufeature: introduce helper
> cpu_has_hw_af()
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:42:43PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> > We unconditionally set the HW_AFDBM capability and only enable it on
> > CPUs which really have the feature. But sometimes we need to know
> > whether this cpu has the capability of HW AF. So decouple AF from
> > DBM by a new helper cpu_has_hw_af().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin...@arm.com>
> > Suggested-by: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
>
> I don't think I reviewed this version of the patch.
Sorry about that.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > index 9cde5d2e768f..1a95396ea5c8 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > @@ -659,6 +659,20 @@ static inline u32
> id_aa64mmfr0_parange_to_phys_shift(int parange)
> > default: return CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS;
> > }
> > }
> > +
> > +/* Check whether hardware update of the Access flag is supported */
> > +static inline bool cpu_has_hw_af(void)
> > +{
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_HW_AFDBM)) {
>
> Please just return early here to avoid unnecessary indentation:
Okay
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_HW_AFDBM))
> return false;
>
> > + u64 mmfr1 = read_cpuid(ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1);
> > +
> > + return !!cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr1,
> > +
> ID_AA64MMFR1_HADBS_SHIFT);
>
> No need for !!, the return type is a bool already.
But cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field has the return type "unsigned int" [1]
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h#n444
>
> Anyway, apart from these nitpicks, the patch is fine you can keep my
> reviewed-by.
Thanks 😉
>
> If later we noticed a potential performance issue on this path, we can
> turn it into a static label as with other CPU features.
Okay
--
Cheers,
Justin (Jia He)
