[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240516-daybreak-keenness-95f165d98ca1@wendy>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 07:37:38 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
To: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<xiao.w.wang@...el.com>, Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
<pulehui@...wei.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer
Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: separate Zbb optimisations requiring and not
requiring toolchain support
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:58:50PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 04:27:40PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/lib/strlen.S b/arch/riscv/lib/strlen.S
> > index 8ae3064e45ff..3ab1310a7b83 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/lib/strlen.S
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/lib/strlen.S
> > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
> > /* int strlen(const char *s) */
> > SYM_FUNC_START(strlen)
> >
> > - ALTERNATIVE("nop", "j strlen_zbb", 0, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB)
> > + ALTERNATIVE("nop", "j strlen_zbb", 0, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB_ALT)
> I am missing why these str functions are changed to use
> CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB_ALT when the __arch_hweight* functions were left as
> using CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB in their alternatives.
I don't think I missed anything in the __arch_hweight*() functions,
their final argument is 1 and they are not conditional on a config
option as the whole block of code they're in is wrapped in ifdeffery:
# ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB_ALT
asm goto(ALTERNATIVE("j %l[legacy]", "nop", 0,
RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB, 1)
: : : : legacy);
Cheers,
Conor.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists