On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:32:41PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:11:00AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> > Add parsing for Zcmop ISA extension which was ratified in commit
> > b854a709c00 ("Zcmop is ratified/1.0") of the riscv-isa-manual.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 1 +
> > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > index b7551bad341b..cff7660de268 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCB 77
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCD 78
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCF 79
> > +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCMOP 80
> >
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG 127
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > index 09dee071274d..f1450cd7231e 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCB),
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcd, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCD),
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCF),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcmop, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCMOP),
>
> As per spec zcmop is dependent on zca. So perhaps below ?
>
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCMOP, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA)
What's zicboz got to do with it, copy-pasto I guess?
Yes, copy-pasta :-)
If we're gonna imply stuff like this though I think we need some
comments explaining why it's okay.
Also, I'm inclined to call that out specifically in the binding, I've
not yet checked if dependencies actually work for elements of a string
array like the do for individual properties. I'll todo list that..
Earlier examples of specifying dependency on envcfg actually had functional
use case.
So you are right, I am not sure if its actually needed in this particular case.
And yes definitley, dependency should be mentioned in binding.
