[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250206-prong-sandfish-417a3bf9de29@spud>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 00:02:56 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] RISC-V: add vector crypto extension validation
checks
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 12:32:49PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 04:05:08PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > The 1.0.0 Vector crypto spec states:
> > The Zvknhb and Zvbc Vector Crypto Extensions --and accordingly
> > the composite extensions Zvkn and Zvks-- 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.
>
> As previously discussed, the above paragraph incorrectly lists the set of crypto
> extensions that require support for 64-bit elements. I have fixed this in the
> latest RISC-V ISA manual. It looks like this patch would still do the same
> thing either way, since it actually just checks that vector is available in some
> form. But this is not the best version of the manual to quote from.
/sigh, I updated the binding commit message but not the code one. That
one should probably change too, given that's now merged.
That's a stupid oversight, thanks.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists