On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 11:50:45AM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> On 2025/4/3 17:04, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 31/03/2025 10:43, Yicong Yang wrote:
> >> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Instructions introduced by FEAT_{LS64, LS64_V} is controlled by
> >> HCRX_EL2.{EnALS, EnASR}. Configure all of these to allow usage
> >> at EL0/1.
> >>
> >> This doesn't mean these instructions are always available in
> >> EL0/1 if provided. The hypervisor still have the control at
> >> runtime.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h | 12 +++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h
> >> index ebceaae3c749..0259941602c4 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/el2_setup.h
> >> @@ -57,9 +57,19 @@
> >> /* Enable GCS if supported */
> >> mrs_s x1, SYS_ID_AA64PFR1_EL1
> >> ubfx x1, x1, #ID_AA64PFR1_EL1_GCS_SHIFT, #4
> >> - cbz x1, .Lset_hcrx_\@
> >> + cbz x1, .Lskip_gcs_hcrx_\@
> >> orr x0, x0, #HCRX_EL2_GCSEn
> >> +.Lskip_gcs_hcrx_\@:
> >
> > minor nit: For consistency, could we rename this "set_ls64", similar to "set_hcrx" ?
> >
>
> IIUC, set_xxx really touches the registers and skip_xxx should just check and prepare
> the feature bits. so here using .Lskip_gcs_hrcx_\@ should be more proper and consistent
> with other places in el2_setup.h, like __init_el2_debug/__init_el2_fgt which also use
> .Lskip_xxx for skipping an unsupported feature?
fwiw, I think the label names are fine as you have them.
Will
