On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:41:00AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > +HWCAP3_MTE_FAR > + Functionality implied by ID_AA64PFR2_EL1.MTEFAR == 0b0001. > +Applications should interpret the values of these bits based on > +the support for the 'mte_far' hwcap. If the support is not present, > +the values of these bits should be considered as undefined otherwise valid. The constant is HWCAP3_MTE_FAR and the cpuinfo is mtefar: > + [KERNEL_HWCAP_MTE_FAR] = "mtefar", The reference to the hwcap should probably be one of these, I'd go for HWCAP3_MTE_FAR since it says hwcap. > /* > * The architecture specifies that bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are UNKNOWN > * for tag check faults. Set them to corresponding bits in the untagged > - * address. > + * address if ARM64_MTE_FAR isn't supported. > + * Otherwise, bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are KNOWN. Should this say UNKNOWN?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
