On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:17:13AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:12:04AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:51:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > +static bool has_32bit_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> > > +{
> > > + return has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope) || __allow_mismatched_32bit_el0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static bool has_useable_gicv3_cpuif(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> > > {
> > > bool has_sre;
> > > @@ -1803,7 +1851,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
> > > .desc = "32-bit EL0 Support",
> > > .capability = ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0,
> > > .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE,
> > > - .matches = has_cpuid_feature,
> > > + .matches = has_32bit_el0,
> >
> > Ah, so this one reports 32-bit EL0 support even if no CPU actually
> > supports 32-bit (passing the command line option on TX2 would come up
> > with 32-bit EL0 in dmesg). I'd rather hide the .desc above and print the
> > information elsewhere when have at least one CPU supporting this.
>
> Yeah, the problem is if a CPU with 32-bit EL0 support was late-onlined,
> then we would have 32-bit support, so I think this is an oddity that you
> get when the command line is passed. That said, I could nobble .desc and
> print it from the .matches function, with a slightly different message
> when the command line is passed.
I think we could do a pr_info_once() in update_32bit_cpu_features().
--
Catalin
