Hi Anshuman,
On 12/19/24 4:13 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 12/18/24 21:12, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Hi Anshuman,
>>
>> On 12/10/24 06:52, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This adds register fields for PFAR_EL1 as per the definitions based on
>>> DDI0601 2024-09.
>>>
>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
>>> index 18b814ff2c41..e33edb41721a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
>>> @@ -3533,3 +3533,10 @@ Field 5 F
>>> Field 4 P
>>> Field 3:0 Align
>>> EndSysreg
>>> +
>>> +Sysreg PFAR_EL1 3 0 6 0 5
>>> +Field 63 NS
>>> +Field 62 NSE
>>> +Res0 61:56
>>> +Field 55:0 PA
>> Just wondering: part of the PA definition depends on FEAT_D128 or
>> FEAT_LPA and the reset field value is UNKNOWN if the feature is not
>> available. Shouldn't introduce separate fields directly?
> Generated PFAR_EL1_PA_MASK aka GENMASK_ULL(55, 0) should cover all the
> cases for PA i.e 48 bits, LPA, D128 etc. Although individual use cases
> will have to trim the mask subsequently as required.
>
> Are you suggesting something like the following instead where the user
> will have to concatenate these fields selectively to find the required
> PA mask ?
>
> Field 55:52 PA_D128
> Field 51:48 PA_LPA
> Field 47:0 PA
Yes that was my suggestion.
Thanks
Eric