[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y0185O1zjyfv7WjN@spud>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:03:48 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
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 05:51:03PM +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?
Trying to decide what status I should set for this in patchwork.
Thanks,
Conor.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists