@@ -1310,23 +1310,21 @@ void sme_kernel_enable(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__always_unused p)
isb();
}
-/*
- * This must be called after sme_kernel_enable(), we rely on the
- * feature table being sorted to ensure this.
- */
void sme2_kernel_enable(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__always_unused p)
{
+ /* This must be enabled after SME */
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(ARM64_SME2 <= ARM64_SME);
+
/* Allow use of ZT0 */
write_sysreg_s(read_sysreg_s(SYS_SMCR_EL1) | SMCR_ELx_EZT0_MASK,
SYS_SMCR_EL1);
}
-/*
- * This must be called after sme_kernel_enable(), we rely on the
- * feature table being sorted to ensure this.
- */
void fa64_kernel_enable(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__always_unused p)
{
+ /* This must be enabled after SME */
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(ARM64_SME_FA64 <= ARM64_SME);
+
/* Allow use of FA64 */
write_sysreg_s(read_sysreg_s(SYS_SMCR_EL1) | SMCR_ELx_FA64_MASK,
SYS_SMCR_EL1);
Both sme2_kernel_enable() and fa64_kernel_enable() need to run after sme_kernel_enable(). This happens to be true today as ARM64_SME has a lower index than either ARM64_SME2 or ARM64_SME_FA64, and both functions have a comment to this effect. It would be nicer to have a build-time assertion like we for for can_use_gic_priorities() and has_gic_prio_relaxed_sync(), as that way it will be harder to miss any potential breakage. This patch replaces the comments with build-time assertions. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> --- arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c | 14 ++++++-------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)