[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221201113824.hcjijn3z45g2vohv@kamzik>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 12:38:24 +0100
From: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, corbet@....net, guoren@...nel.org,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] RISC-V: resort all extensions in consistent orders
On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:47:04AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2022, 10:00:41 CET schrieb Andrew Jones:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:41:25PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> > >
> > > Ordering between each and every list of extensions is wildly
> > > inconsistent. Per discussion on the lists pick the following policy:
> > >
> > > - The array defining order in /proc/cpuinfo follows a narrow
> > > interpretation of the ISA specifications, described in a comment
> > > immediately presiding it.
> > >
> > > - All other lists of extensions are sorted alphabetically.
> > >
> > > This will hopefully allow for easier review & future additions, and
> > > reduce conflicts between patchsets as the number of extensions grows.
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221129144742.2935581-2-conor.dooley@microchip.com/
> > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> > > ---
> > > I could not decide between adding an alphabetical comment to each
> > > alphabetical site or not. I did it anyway. Scream if you hate it!
> > >
> > > I also moved a static branch thingy in this version, but that should not
> > > matter, right? riightt?
> >
> > riiighttt. And it goes away with [1] anyway.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221006070818.3616-1-jszhang@kernel.org/
>
> I'm not sure what became of that series since mid october, though noting
> that tightly coupling the patching to extensions alone might cause issues [2]
> which some of the "features" like fast-unaligned access, that are not directly
> bound to a isa-extension but to an implementation detail
>
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1991071.yIU609i1g2@phil/
Jisheng said he'd send a refresh soon. Hopefully your comments will be
taken into consideration. It seems like we need both the concepts of
cpufeatures and extensions. Where many times a cpufeature directly maps
to an extension, but not always. Or, we could shoehorn the non-extension
cpufeatures into the extension framework by calling them "derived
extensions" or something.
>
>
> >
> > > ---
> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 12 +++++++-----
> > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 4 ++--
> > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 6 ++++--
> > > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > > index b22525290073..ce522aad641a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > > @@ -51,14 +51,15 @@ extern unsigned long elf_hwcap;
> > > * RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX. 0-25 range is reserved for single letter
> > > * extensions while all the multi-letter extensions should define the next
> > > * available logical extension id.
> > > + * Entries are sorted alphabetically.
> > > */
> > > enum riscv_isa_ext_id {
> > > RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF = RISCV_ISA_EXT_BASE,
> > > + RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
> > > + RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
> > > RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT,
> > > RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM,
> > > RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE,
> > > - RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
> > > - RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
> > > RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX = RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX,
> > > };
> >
> > Unrelated to this patch, but every time I look at this enum I want to post
> > the diff below, but I haven't bothered, because this enum also goes away
> > with [1].
> >
> > @@ -59,8 +59,9 @@ enum riscv_isa_ext_id {
> > RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE,
> > RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
> > RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
> > - RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX = RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX,
> > + RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX
> > };
> > +static_assert(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX <= RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX);
>
> that sounds like a very reasonable idea ... what's keeping you? :-)
Posted :-)
Thanks,
drew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists