On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 15:39:49 +0100,
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 02:58:58PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > +static void reset_pmu_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> > +{
> > + u64 n, mask;
> > +
> > + /* No PMU available, any PMU reg may UNDEF... */
> > + if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + n = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) >> ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT;
> > + n &= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK;
> > +
> > + reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> > +
> > + mask = BIT(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);
> > + if (n)
> > + mask |= GENMASK(n - 1, 0);
> > +
> > + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= mask;
>
> Would this read more logically to structure it as:
>
> mask = BIT(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);
>
> n = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) >> ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT;
> n &= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK;
> if (n)
> mask |= GENMASK(n - 1, 0);
>
> reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= mask;
>
> ?
Yup, that's nicer. Amended locally.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
