On 5 April 2016 7:56:23 pm AEST, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
>On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 19:35 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Shouldn't we be clearing the user feature there too?
>>
>> The ibm_pa_features array and the logic in scan_features() knows to
>> flip the
>> cpu_user_features bits, it
On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 19:35 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Shouldn't we be clearing the user feature there too?
>
> The ibm_pa_features array and the logic in scan_features() knows to
> flip the
> cpu_user_features bits, it was just never updated to handle
> cpu_user_features2.
>
> So it seems
On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 11:11:12 UTC, Paul Mackerras via Linuxppc-dev wrote:
> In check_cpu_pa_features() we check a number of bits in the
Shouldn't we be clearing the user feature there too?
The ibm_pa_features array and the logic in scan_features() knows to flip the
cpu_user_features bits, it was
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:11:12PM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> In check_cpu_pa_features() we check a number of bits in the
> ibm,pa-features array and set and clear CPU features based on what
> we find. One of these bits is CPU_FTR_TM, the transactional memory
> feature bit.
>
> If this does d
In check_cpu_pa_features() we check a number of bits in the
ibm,pa-features array and set and clear CPU features based on what
we find. One of these bits is CPU_FTR_TM, the transactional memory
feature bit.
If this does disable TM at runtime, then we need to tell userspace
about it by clearing the
