On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:22:13AM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
>
>
> On 05/02/2025 17:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Using Clement's new validation callbacks, support checking that
> > dependencies have been satisfied for the floating point extensions.
> >
> > The check for "d" might be slightly confusingly shorter than that of "f",
> > despite "d" depending on "f". This is because the requirement that a
> > hart supporting double precision must also support single precision,
> > should be validated by dt-bindings etc, not the kernel but lack of
> > support for single precision only is a limitation of the kernel.
> >
> > Since vector will now be disabled proactively, there's no need to clear
> > the bit in elf_hwcap in riscv_fill_hwcap() any longer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > index 1c148ecea612..ad4fbaa4ff0d 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -109,6 +109,29 @@ static int riscv_ext_zicboz_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int riscv_ext_f_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
> > + const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
> > +{
> > + if (!__riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_d)) {
> > + pr_warn_once("This kernel does not support systems with F but not D\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> While I tested to remove the RISCV_ISA_EXT_d from the input isa bitmap
> and it worked, I didn't realized that it was due to the probe order of
> single letter extensions. D is probed before F so that works as
> expected. But returning -EPROBEDEFER would not allow to display the
> warn_once or wrongly display it if D was not yet probed. So I'm inclined
> to keep it as is and rely on probe order (a bit fragile but for single
> letter extensions, that seems acceptable).
I guess it's worth adding a comment to that effect.
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FPU))
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> I would have actually move that chunk before the
> __riscv_isa_extension_available() check so that the whole function body
> is elided if FPU is disabled.
I think you're right, but for another reason too - warning when someone
has turned off CONIFG_FPU doesn't make sense.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
