On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:31:42AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 11/9/20 8:22 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:09:42PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > ETM v4.4 onwards adds support for system instruction access
> > > to the ETM. Detect the support on an ETM and switch to using the
> > > mode when available.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > .../coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
> > > b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
> > > index 4bc2f15b6332..dc537b5612eb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
> > > @@ -675,6 +675,37 @@ static const struct coresight_ops etm4_cs_ops = {
> > > .source_ops = &etm4_source_ops,
> > > };
> > > +static inline bool cpu_supports_sysreg_trace(void)
> > > +{
> > > + u64 dfr0 = read_sysreg_s(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1);
> > > +
> > > + return ((dfr0 >> ID_AA64DFR0_TRACEVER_SHIFT) & 0xfUL) > 0;
> >
> > I would do:
> >
> > return ((dfr0 >> ID_AA64DFR0_TRACEVER_SHIFT) & 0xfUL) == 1;
> >
> > Because any other value than '1' are reserved.
>
> Correct. However, this is something we follow for all ID features
> in the arm64 kernel and is clarified in the Arm ARM (ARM DDI 0487F.a) :
>
> "D13.1.3 Principles of the ID scheme for fields in ID registers"
>
> Which guarantees that a (field > n) implies, everything that field == n
> is implied. (Well there are exceptions listed in the section, but
> TRACEVER is not one of those). So this should cover an old kernel
> running on a future CPU, using the features that it understands.
> (See feature_matches() in arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c, which is
> the fundamental logic to detect a feature).
>
While I haven't found anything conclusive in cpufeature.c, the documentation is
clear on the fact that versions are incremental and build on top of previous
ones. We can proceed with the current implementation.
> Please let me know if you're OK with the justification.
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> Suzuki
