On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:01:09AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2023 15:38:10 PDT (-0700), Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 03:34:24PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 2:47 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 02:27:44PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > > > > > That's more than last year at this point, and nothing has changed in the > > > > documentation! Talk's cheap, ehh? > > > > > > > > > > Yup. I will poke RVI folks to check if it still is the plan or changed !! > > > > Sounds good, thanks! There has been some movement on that front, shall see where it goes :upsidedown_smile: > > > We will likely have a vendor specific string parsing logic. > > > > Complicating the parsing logic is the exact sort of crap that I want > > to avoid. > > Ya, I think we're reallly overcomplicating things with the ISA strings. > Let's just deprecate them and move to something that doesn't need all the > bespoke string parsing. Versioning aside, although that removes a large part of the motivation, the interface becomes quite nice: of_property_present(node, "riscv,isa-extension-zicbom") That also gives us the ability to define what supported vendor extensions actually mean in a dt-binding, which to me is a big win in terms of the aforementioned "wild west".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
