[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+1KPzh9xnyKXf0W@spud>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:10:23 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>, vineetg@...osinc.com,
heiko@...ech.de, slewis@...osinc.com,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...osinc.com>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
Celeste Liu <coelacanthus@...look.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Dao Lu <daolu@...osinc.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Ruizhe Pan <c141028@...il.com>,
Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>,
Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] RISC-V: Add a syscall for HW probing
heh, this came in right as I went to check out by branch with this on it
and look at the rest of the series.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:49:35PM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:51 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:14:51PM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
> > > +On success 0 is returned, on failure a negative error code is returned.
> > > +
> > > +The following keys are defined:
> > > +
> > > +* :RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MVENDORID:: Contains the value of :mvendorid:, as per the
> > > + ISA specifications.
> >
> > "per the ISA specifications" sounds like dangerous wording to me! ;)
>
> I can replace "per the ISA specifications" with "as defined by the
> RISC-V privileged architecture specification" to try and make that
> more crisp.
Meh was a comment about not trusting the ISA specs, not an attempt to
be a pedant!
> > > +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MVENDORID 0
> > > +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MARCHID 1
> > > +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID 2
> > > +/* Increase RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY when adding items. */
> >
> > Can't wait for that to get forgotten!
>
> I know. I could add an if (pair->key > RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY) goto
> unrecognized_key, with a label at the default switch case, which would
> effectively be a runtime guard against it. I opted not to as it's
> aesthetically harsh, but anyone can holler if they want it.
The other question to ask is, do we need RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY?
What's it for?
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> > > index 73d7cdd2ec49..37d47302322a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> > > @@ -43,3 +43,11 @@
> > > #define __NR_riscv_flush_icache (__NR_arch_specific_syscall + 15)
> > > #endif
> > > __SYSCALL(__NR_riscv_flush_icache, sys_riscv_flush_icache)
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Allows userspace to probe
> >
> > That comment looks chopped off midway through.
>
> Whoops yes I
If you could flesh it
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists