On 19/04/2024 17:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:42:27PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>> The Zc* standard extension for code reduction introduces new extensions.
>> This patch adds support for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb. Zce, Zcmt and Zcmp
>> are left out of this patch since they are targeting microcontrollers/
>> embedded CPUs instead of application processors.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 4 ++++
>> arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> index 543e3ea2da0e..b7551bad341b 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> @@ -82,6 +82,10 @@
>> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZACAS 73
>> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XANDESPMU 74
>> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIMOP 75
>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA 76
>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCB 77
>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCD 78
>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCF 79
>>
>> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG 127
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 115ba001f1bc..09dee071274d 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -261,6 +261,10 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
>> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zfa, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZFA),
>> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zfh, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZFH),
>> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zfhmin, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZFHMIN),
>> + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zca, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA),
>> + __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(zba, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBA),
>> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
>> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBC),
>
> Ye, this looks exactly like what I "feared".
Ok but for instance, Qemu actually set Zc* based on C/F/D. So the ISA
string containing theses dependencies should actually also be allowed.
So should we simply ignore them in the ISA string and always do our own
"post-processing" based on C/F/D ?
Thanks,
Clément
