[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240614-broadly-lucrative-d2c1e746ee32@spud>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:32:11 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Jesse Taube <jesse@...osinc.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.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 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>,
Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>, Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Erick Archer <erick.archer@....com>,
Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] RISC-V: Detect unaligned vector accesses
supported.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 10:28:17AM -0400, Jesse Taube wrote:
>
>
> On 6/14/24 04:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 09:36:55AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 03:16:13PM -0400, Jesse Taube wrote:
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> > > > @@ -19,7 +19,8 @@
> > > > #define MISALIGNED_BUFFER_ORDER get_order(MISALIGNED_BUFFER_SIZE)
> > > > #define MISALIGNED_COPY_SIZE ((MISALIGNED_BUFFER_SIZE / 2) - 0x80)
> > > > -DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, misaligned_access_speed);
> > > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> > > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, vector_misaligned_access) = RISCV_HWPROBE_VEC_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> > > > static cpumask_t fast_misaligned_access;
> > > > @@ -268,12 +269,18 @@ static int check_unaligned_access_all_cpus(void)
> > > > if (riscv_has_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICCLSM)) {
> > > > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_VECTOR_MISALIGNED
> > > > + per_cpu(vector_misaligned_access, cpu) = RISCV_HWPROBE_VEC_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_MISALIGNED
> > > > per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Can you IS_ENABLED()-ify these two as well please?
> >
> > Ah, you can't cos the variable doesn't exist in the other case.
>
> Yeah kinda just dealing with how it was originally written ideally we would
> use IS_ENABLED. I don't really want to have a 500+ diff patch
> IS_ENABLED()-ifying the original code as well. I can do that if necessary
> though.
No, dw about it. I made a mistake.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists