[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241025024224.GC1781@sol.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:42:24 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
Andy Chiu <andybnac@...il.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] dt-bindings: riscv: document vector crypto
requirements
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 07:24:11PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 01:34:33PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> >
> > Section 35.2. Extensions Overview of [1] says:
> > | The Zvknhb and Zvbc Vector Crypto Extensions --and accordingly the composite extensions Zvkn and
> > | Zvks-- (sic) require a Zve64x base, or application ("V") base Vector Extension.
> > | All of the other Vector Crypto Extensions can be built on any embedded (Zve*) or application ("V") base
> > | Vector Extension
> >
> > Apply these rules in the binding, so that invalid combinations can be
> > avoided.
>
> It looks like that part of the spec is wrong, though. The Zvknhb and Zvbc are
> correct, but the list of the composite extensions that at least one of them is
> included in is: Zvkn, Zvknc, Zvkng, Zvksc.
>
I am attempting to fix this in
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/pull/1697
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists