On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:48:09AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 02:56:30PM +0800, Andy Chiu wrote:
> > Hi Conor,
> >
> > Should we check if "v" presents for vector crypto extensions in
> > riscv_isa_extension_check()? We are not checking this for now. So a
> > kernel compiled with RISCV_ISA_V still has a problem if its isa-string
> > includes any of vector crypto ("zvbb, zvkg, etc") but not "v".
>
>
> Yeah, one of the things I took away from this discussion is that we need
> to improve the implementation of both the methods we have at the moment
> for drivers etc to check if extensions are present and usable.
> In general, I don't think checks like that are "safe" to do in
> riscv_isa_extension_check(), because the dependencies may not all have
> been resolved when we probe an extension (Clement's current Zca etc
> series improves the situation though by only calling the checks after
> we probe all extensions).
>
> The simple V cases are all fine though - the DT binding and ACPI rules
> for compatible strings all mandate that single-letter extensions must
> come before multi-letter ones. For riscv,isa-extensions we control the
> probe ordering and probe V before any multi-letter stuff. Additionally,
> we should make it a requirement for V to be present if things that
> depend on it are.
>
> That said, is it permitted by the specs to have any of the extensions
> you mention without the full V extension, but with one of the cut-down
> variants you mention here? If not, I'd be more interested in figuring
> out the non-extension dependencies: whether or not the kernel itself
> supports vector and if the kernel has opted to disable vector due to
> detecting that harts have mismatching vector lengths.
>
> TL;DR: I think we should add some checks in riscv_isa_extension_check().
Also, unless this only becomes a problem with this series that adds the
cut-down forms of vector, I think this is a separate problem to solve
and I can send some patches for it (along with some other cleanup I'd like
to do as a result of Eric's comments) and you can just submit the v2 you
were planning to without it. I can't, off the top of my head, think of
why this particular series would break the vector crypto stuff though,
the problems with enabling extensions seem underlying.
Thanks,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
