This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] arm64: HWCAP: add support for AT_HWCAP2
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:11:20AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 09:32:55AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:58:31PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 11:45:10AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> > > > index aa4ec53281ce..6cc8aff83805 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> > > > @@ -833,7 +833,11 @@ static void arch_timer_evtstrm_enable(int divider)
> > > > cntkctl |= (divider << ARCH_TIMER_EVT_TRIGGER_SHIFT)
> > > > | ARCH_TIMER_VIRT_EVT_EN;
> > > > arch_timer_set_cntkctl(cntkctl);
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> > > > + cpu_set_named_feature(EVTSTRM);
> > > > +#else
> > > > elf_hwcap |= HWCAP_EVTSTRM;
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > I wonder whether we can have a generic definition for this:
> > >
> > > #define cpu_set_named_feature(x) (elf_hwcap |= HWCAP_ ## x)
> > You mean specific to arm32?
> > I will do this, along with a cpu_get_named_feature - but I think I'd prefer
> > to do this in a separate series.
> Yes, we could do that. We could also do it more widely, but it's
> probably not worth the overhead of doing it.
I had considered this as well but also determined that it wouldn't give