On 11/04/2024 11:03, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:25:06AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/04/2024 00:32, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I actually saw that and think about addressing it but AFAICT, this
>> should be handled by the machine firmware passing the isa string to the
>> kernel (ie, it should be valid). In the case of QEMU, it takes care of
>> setting the extension that are required by this extension itself.
>>
>> If we consider to have potentially broken isa string (ie extensions
>> dependencies not correctly handled), then we'll need some way to
>> validate this within the kernel.
>
> No, the DT passed to the kernel should be correct and we by and large we
> should not have to do validation of it. What I meant above was writing
> the binding so that something invalid will not pass dtbs_check.
Acked, I was mainly answering Deepak question about dependencies wrt to
using __RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET() which does not seems to be relevant
since we expect a correct isa string to be passed. But as you stated, DT
validation clearly make sense. I think a lot of extensions strings would
benefit such support (All the Zv* depends on V, etc).
Clément
