On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:42:34PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 02:30:53PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Why not just have something like
> >
> > mycpu {
> > ...
> > riscv,isa {
> > i;
> > m;
> > a;
> > zicsr;
> > ...
> > };
> > };
>
> Naming of the node aside (perhaps that could be riscv,isa-extensions)
> there's not something hitting me immediately as to why that is a no-no.
> If the size is a concern, this would certainly be more efficient & not
> like the probing would be anything other than trivial more difficult
> what I have in my proposal.
Having started messing around with this, one of the main advantages, to
me, of this approach is proper validation.
cpus.yaml has additionalProperties: true in it, which would have had to
be sorted out, or worked around, but creating a child-node with the
properties in it allows setting additionalProperties: false.
> Rob's AFK at the moment, and I was hoping that he would take a look at
> the idea, so I won't respin til he is back, but I'll give this a go in
> the interim.
Mechanically, the conversion of the patch isn't difficult, but I'll still
wait for Rob to come back before sending a v2. But that v2 will more
than likely implement your suggestion.
Cheers,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
