[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221017161840.7o5tpsjox7klyvvs@kamzik>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:18:40 +0200
From: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Dao Lu <daolu@...osinc.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] (attempt to) Fix RISC-V toolchain extension support
detection
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 05:03:48PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 05:51:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 06:35:19PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >
> > However, we could also drop the compiler and linker checking if we
> > converted our use of cbo.* to the insn-def.h framework (I think Heiko once
> > mentioned looking at doing that, but I'm not sure.) I'm looking at adding
> > Zicboz support right now and for starters I've duplicated and modified
> > these checks. But, I think I'll look into defining the instruction type
> > needed for cbo.* and using insn-def instead.
>
> What is the ETA of your zicboz support? Do you think these patches
> should be applied to v6.1 & backported before being replaced by insn-def
> when your zicboz support arrives? Or just wait for your zicboz series?
I hope to have something posted by the end of this week, so if all things
go well, it could land in 6.1. I think it's reasonable to merge your
patches anyway, though, as they fix the current code and we don't know
what rabbit holes I may fall in with my series yet.
Thanks,
drew
>
> Trying to decide what status I should set for this in patchwork.
>
> Thanks,
> Conor.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists