[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALs-HsskLpLg=yEfULXZNOCFeFU3M9j9Kzcj49gPtw+0VGGhzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:04:25 -0700
From: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>, slewis@...osinc.com,
heiko@...ech.de, vineetg@...osinc.com,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...osinc.com>,
Celeste Liu <coelacanthus@...look.com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add support for RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA
Yep, you and Heiko are on the same wavelength these days. I'll make that change.
-Evan
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:36 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:32:17AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
> > which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>
> > @@ -125,6 +126,25 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
> > case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID:
> > hwprobe_arch_id(pair, cpus);
> > break;
> > + /*
> > + * The kernel already assumes that the base single-letter ISA
> > + * extensions are supported on all harts, and only supports the
> > + * IMA base, so just cheat a bit here and tell that to
> > + * userspace.
> > + */
> > + case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> > + pair->value = RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> > + pair->value = 0;
> > + if (has_fpu())
> > + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
> > +
> > + if (elf_hwcap & RISCV_ISA_EXT_c)
>
> Random thought while reviewing another patch, and I kinda felt a bit
> stupid following the existing code to try and make sure, but should this
> become a call to riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)?
> It may be nice to propagate that helper, if it works, than check the bit
> directly.
>
> Cheers,
> Conor.
>
> > + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
> > +
> > + break;
> >
> > /*
> > * For forward compatibility, unknown keys don't fail the whole
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists