[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240426-suitable-unsheathe-0c5f5851c891@spud>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:37:33 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>,
Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/17] riscv: Introduce vendor variants of extension
helpers
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 01:01:10PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:19:59PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 06:04:40PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > > @@ -163,6 +164,8 @@ void thead_errata_patch_func(struct alt_entry *begin, struct alt_entry *end,
> > > for (alt = begin; alt < end; alt++) {
> > > if (alt->vendor_id != THEAD_VENDOR_ID)
> > > continue;
> > > + if (alt->patch_id >= RISCV_VENDOR_EXT_ALTERNATIVES_BASE)
> > > + continue;
> >
> > > if (alt->patch_id >= ERRATA_THEAD_NUMBER)
> >
> > This number is 2, how does the patching actually work for vendor stuff
> > when the base is always greater than 2?
> >
>
> Patching is handled through the patcher at the end of cpufeature.c. The
> vendor_id field is set in the alternatives for errata and now also for
> vendor extensions. The vendor extension patching is all handled
> generically.
>
> This is distinguished by the patch_id being greater than
> RISCV_VENDOR_EXT_ALTERNATIVES_BASE, which should leave way more than
> enough room for errata ids. Since the code already checks if the
> patch_id is greater than the errata number, I can drop the
> "if (alt->patch_id >= RISCV_VENDOR_EXT_ALTERNATIVES_BASE)" check.
Ah, ye, I was being dumb - I was somehow thinking that you were using
the errata patch function to patch this, which obviously wouldn't be a
good design. If that had been the case, you'd never patch anything, but
you patch the extensions using the cpufeature patch function so it all
works out.
If anything, I guess there could be an assert here somewhere that
enforces ERRATA_VENDOR_NUMBER < VENDOR_EXT_BASE.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists