On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 10:40:15PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 06:43:05PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Yes, the issues here are not technical ones. Though there are some > > complications - eg, IIRC the XML doesn't encode the signedness of > > fields like we do and there's areas where we've deliberately diverged. > > Given the amount of review I end up having to do of sysreg changes your > > reasoning is especially apparent to me. I've passed this feedback on > > (again). > One thing we _could_ do is have a tool (in-tree) that takes two copies > of the sysreg file (i.e. before and after applying a diff) along with a > copy of the XML and, for the the new fields being added, shows how the > XML represents those compared to the diff. It should then be relatively > straightforward to flag the use of an unallocated encoding (like we had > here) and also things like assigning a field name to a RES0 region. > So this wouldn't be generating the patches from the XML, but more like > using the XML as an oracle in a linter. That'd be useful, yes - unfortunately I think that's still something I can't work on myself at the moment for the above mentioned non-technical reasons.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
