You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Assemblers will reject instructions not supported by a target
architecture version, and so we must explicitly tell the assembler the
latest architecture version for which we want to assemble instructions
from.
We've added a few AS_HAS_ARMV8_<N> definitions for this, in addition to
an inconsistently named AS_HAS_PAC definition, from which arm64's
top-level Makefile determines the architecture version that we intend to
target, and generates the `asm-arch` variable.
To make this a bit clearer and easier to maintain, this patch reworks
the Makefile to determine asm-arch in a single if-else-endif chain.
AS_HAS_PAC, which is defined when the assembler supports
`-march=armv8.3-a`, is renamed to AS_HAS_ARMV8_3.
As the logic for armv8.3-a is lifted out of the block handling pointer
authentication, `asm-arch` may now be set to armv8.3-a regardless of
whether support for pointer authentication is selected. This means that
it will be possible to assemble armv8.3-a instructions even if we didn't
intend to, but this is consistent with our handling of other
architecture versions, and the compiler won't generate armv8.3-a
instructions regardless.
For the moment there's no need for an CONFIG_AS_HAS_ARMV8_1, as the code
for LSE atomics and LDAPR use individual `.arch_extension` entries and
do not require the baseline asm arch to be bumped to armv8.1-a. The
other armv8.1-a features (e.g. PAN) do not require assembler support.
There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230131105809.991288-2-mark.rutland@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
0 commit comments