[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240430-gratuity-refinish-29abb136c958@wendy>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:12:32 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
To: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Paul
Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof
Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Anup Patel
<anup@...infault.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Atish Patra
<atishp@...shpatra.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:58:11PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> Yeah, see what you mean. I think we also need to define if we want to
> expose all the ISA extensions in /proc/cpuinfo (ie no matter the config
> of the kernel) or not. If so, additional validate() callback would make
> sense. If we want to keep the full ISA string in /proc/info, then we
> will need another way of doing so.
If extensions aren't usable, they shouldn't be in /proc/cpuinfo either
as there's programs that parse that to figure out what they can use,
possibly even only checking a single cpu and using that as gospel.
That's why there's that per-hart-isa thing that was added by one of your
colleagues last year.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists