On 10/21/20 15:41, Will Deacon wrote: > > We already expose MIDR and REVIDR via the current sysfs interface. We > > can expand it to include _all_ the other ID_* regs currently available > > to user via the MRS emulation and we won't have to debate what a new > > interface would look like. The MRS emulation and the sysfs info should > > probably match, though that means we need to expose the > > ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.EL0 field which we currently don't. > > > > I do agree that an AArch32 cpumask is an easier option both from the > > kernel implementation perspective and from the application usability > > one, though not as easy as automatic task placement by the scheduler (my > > first preference, followed by the id_* regs and the aarch32 mask, though > > not a strong preference for any). > > If a cpumask is easier to implement and easier to use, then I think that's > what we should do. It's also then dead easy to disable if necessary by > just returning 0. The only alternative I would prefer is not having to > expose this information altogether, but I'm not sure that figuring this > out from MIDR/REVIDR alone is reliable. So the mask idea is about adding a new /sys/devices/system/cpu/aarch32_cpus ? I just need to make sure that Peter and Greg are happy with this arm64 specific mask added to sysfs in this manner. Not sure if there's a precedent of archs exporting special masks in sysfs. Or maybe people had something else in mind about how his this mask should be exported? Thanks -- Qais Yousef
