* Elena Reshetova <elena.reshet...@intel.com> wrote:

> Add a flag indicating whenever ENCLS[EUPDATESVN] SGX instruction
> is supported. This will be used by SGX driver to perform CPU
> SVN updates.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshet...@intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h       | 1 +
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c          | 1 +
>  tools/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h 
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> index 6c2c152d8a67..ed0c0fa5822a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> @@ -481,6 +481,7 @@
>  #define X86_FEATURE_AMD_HETEROGENEOUS_CORES (21*32 + 6) /* Heterogeneous 
> Core Topology */
>  #define X86_FEATURE_AMD_WORKLOAD_CLASS       (21*32 + 7) /* Workload 
> Classification */
>  #define X86_FEATURE_PREFER_YMM               (21*32 + 8) /* Avoid ZMM 
> registers due to downclocking */
> +#define X86_FEATURE_SGX_EUPDATESVN   (21*32 + 9) /* Support for 
> ENCLS[EUPDATESVN] instruction */

Please base the patches on the latest x86 tree, there's been two 
additions already in this area.

>  /*
>   * BUG word(s)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c
> index 16f3ca30626a..a7e1fcedca3c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ static const struct cpuid_bit cpuid_bits[] = {
>       { X86_FEATURE_PER_THREAD_MBA,           CPUID_ECX,  0, 0x00000010, 3 },
>       { X86_FEATURE_SGX1,                     CPUID_EAX,  0, 0x00000012, 0 },
>       { X86_FEATURE_SGX2,                     CPUID_EAX,  1, 0x00000012, 0 },
> +     { X86_FEATURE_SGX_EUPDATESVN,   CPUID_EAX, 10, 0x00000012, 0 },
>       { X86_FEATURE_SGX_EDECCSSA,             CPUID_EAX, 11, 0x00000012, 0 },
>       { X86_FEATURE_HW_PSTATE,                CPUID_EDX,  7, 0x80000007, 0 },
>       { X86_FEATURE_CPB,                      CPUID_EDX,  9, 0x80000007, 0 },

So it should be obvious at a glance that this new line doesn't follow 
the coding convention of the surrounding lines...

Thanks,

        Ingo

Reply via email to