On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 5:31 AM Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:06:10PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:48:40PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:08 PM Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 09:28:28PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 09:14:02PM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > > > > For register names that are unsupported by the assembler or the ones > > > > > > without architectural names, add the macros write_sysreg_s and > > > > > > read_sysreg_s to support them. > > > > > > > > > > > > The functionality is derived from kvm-unit-tests and kernel's > > > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to just include <asm/sysreg.h>? See > > > > > tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h > > > > > > > > Geez, sorry for the noise. I mistakenly searched from the root of my > > > > repository, not the tools/ directory. > > > > > > > No worries :) > > > > > > > In any case, you could perhaps just drop the kernel header there just to > > > > use the exact same source for kernel and selftest. > > > > > > > You mean just copy/paste the entire header? There's a lot of stuff in > > > there which we > > > don't need it (yet). > > > > Right. It's mostly register definitions, which I don't think is too high > > of an overhead. Don't know where others stand, but I would prefer a > > header that is equivalent between kernel & selftests over a concise > > header. > > > > Until now we haven't needed the sys_reg(...) type of definitions for > sysregs in selftests. In case we did, we defined the registers we > needed for get/set_one_reg by their parts, e.g. > > #define ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 3, 0, 0, 5, 0 > > allowing us to choose how we use them, ARM64_SYS_REG(...) vs. > sys_reg(...). > > Bringing over sysreg.h is probably a good idea though. If we do, then > I'd suggest we define a new macro that allows us to convert a SYS_* > register definition from sysreg.h into an ARM64_SYS_REG definition > for get/set_one_reg in order to avoid redundant definitions. > I agree. Will look into it, and plan to pull the original sysreg.h into selftests. Regards, Raghavendra > Thanks, > drew >
