Hi Will,
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:48:11 +0100,
Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 04:10:51PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > To allow using newer instructions that current assemblers don't know about,
> > replace the `at` instruction with the underlying SYS instruction.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly <joey.go...@arm.com>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <m...@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.up...@linux.dev>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <m...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 3 ++-
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/fault.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Marc -- what would you like to do with this patch? I think the POE series
> is really close now, so ideally I'd queue the lot on a branch in arm64
> and you could pull the first ~10 patches into kvmarm if you need 'em.
>
> Would what work for you, or did you have something else in mind (since
> this one is also included in your series adding nv support for AT).
Is there any progress on this front? I am quite eager to queue the AT
series, but the dependency on this patch is preventing me to do so.
I can see there are outstanding questions on the POE series, so I was
wondering if we should consider reversing the dependency: I can create
a stable branch with this single patch, which you can pull as a prefix
of the POE series.
Please let me know what you prefer.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
