On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:21:51AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> On 3/13/25 3:41 AM, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index fb8752b42ec8..3e4cc917a07e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -453,6 +453,9 @@
> > arm64.no32bit_el0 [ARM64] Unconditionally disable the execution of
> > 32 bit applications.
> >
> > + arm64.nobbml2 [ARM64] Unconditionally disable Break-Before-Make Level
> > + 2 support
>
> Hi Miko,
>
> A question about the kernel boot parameter. Can this parameter be used
> in early boot stage? A quick look at the code shows it should be ok, for
> example, cpu_has_bti() is called in map_kernel(). But I'd like to double
> check because my patchset needs to check this parameter in map_mem() to
> determine whether large block mapping can be used or not.
>
> And a nit below.
I will need to double check exactly when the arm64 software overrides
are finalised, but as long as those values are finalised in / before (?)
the early boot stage then it should be fine? Will reply again once I
check and have an answer.
> > +static inline bool bbml2_possible(void)
> > +{
> > + return !arm64_test_sw_feature_override(ARM64_SW_FEATURE_OVERRIDE_NOBBML2);
> > +}
>
> Can this be moved to cpufeature.h? My patch will use this, anyway I can
> do it in my patchset.
>
> Thanks,
> Yang
I can do so. In fact, on second thought, I will probably extend this to
also include the `IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_BBML2_NOABORT)` check as well,
and then move it to cpufeature.h, instead of folding said check into
has_bbml2_noabort().
--
Kind regards,
Mikołaj Lenczewski
