On 14/01/2025 6:16 pm, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:49 AM Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:43:39 +0000, James Clark james.clark@linaro.org wrote:
On 12/01/2025 12:49 pm, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:32:41 +0000, James Clark james.clark@linaro.org wrote:
From: James Clark james.clark@arm.com
There are a few entries particularly at the end of the file that aren't in order. To avoid confusion, add a comment that might help new entries to be added in the right place.
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org Signed-off-by: James Clark james.clark@arm.com Signed-off-by: James Clark james.clark@linaro.org
arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg index b081b54d6d22..4ba167089e2a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg @@ -48,6 +48,8 @@ # feature that introduces them (eg, FEAT_LS64_ACCDATA introduces enumeration # item ACCDATA) though it may be more taseful to do something else. +# Please try to keep entries in this file sorted by sysreg encoding.
- Sysreg OSDTRRX_EL1 2 0 0 0 2 Res0 63:32 Field 31:0 DTRRX
"Do as I say, don't do as I do".
I don't think this makes any sense if we don't actually sort the file the first place.
M.I think it's ok if it avoids review comments that new entries should be sorted. Or maybe we do the opposite and the comment should say this file is allowed to be unsorted...
The better option would be to add the comment *and* sort the file. Leading by example has some value, it seems.
IME, it's better if documentation just states what the tools enforce.
Can't we add something like this to the header generation:
$ grep '^Sysreg\s' arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | sort -n -k3 -k4 -k5 -k6 -k7 -c sort: -:22: disorder: Sysreg ID_MMFR4_EL1 3 0 0 2 6
Rob
Actually I updated gen-sysreg.awk to fail the build if it's not sorted, was just about to post it. I don't know if a build failure or a warning is preferred but I can do either.
James
-
James Clark