On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:29:57AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Hi Jisheng. Hi Heiko, > > Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2023, 18:10:19 CET schrieb Jisheng Zhang: > > riscv_cpufeature_patch_func() currently only scans a limited set of > > cpufeatures, explicitly defined with macros. Extend it to probe for all > > ISA extensions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/riscv/include/asm/errata_list.h | 9 ++-- > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 63 ++++------------------------ > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-) > > hmmm ... I do see a somewhat big caveat for this. > and would like to take back my Reviewed-by for now > > > With this change we would limit the patchable cpufeatures to actual > riscv extensions. But cpufeatures can also be soft features like > how performant the core handles unaligned accesses. Besides Drew's comments and my reply a few minutes ago, here are what I thought: I agree with you about "cpufeatures can also be soft features" which I called cpu related features, but currently we don't have that case in urgent, the SV48 and SV57 are extensions now as Jessica pointed out[1], so I planed to send a v7 to apply the alternative mechanism for SV48/SV57, and I think we still have time to revisit the "expanding cpufeatures to cover soft features". But that need to be addressed in another improvement series. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/391AFCB9-D314-4243-9E35-6D95B81C9400@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > See Palmer's series [0]. > > > Also this essentially codifies that each ALTERNATIVE can only ever > be attached to exactly one extension. > > But contrary to vendor-errata, it is very likely that we will need > combinations of different extensions for some alternatives in the future. > > In my optimization quest, I found that it's actually pretty neat to > convert the errata-id for cpufeatures to a bitfield [1], because then it's > possible to just combine extensions into said bitfield [2]: > > ALTERNATIVE_2("nop", > "j strcmp_zbb_unaligned", 0, CPUFEATURE_ZBB | CPUFEATURE_FAST_UNALIGNED, 0, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB, > "j variant_zbb", 0, CPUFEATURE_ZBB, CPUFEATURE_FAST_UNALIGNED, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) > > [the additional field there models a "not" component] > > So I really feel this would limit us quite a bit. > > > Heiko > > > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/palmer/linux.git/commit/?h=riscv-hwprobe-v1&id=510c491cb9d87dcbdc91c63558dc704968723240 > [1] https://github.com/mmind/linux-riscv/commit/f57a896122ee7e666692079320fc35829434cf96 > [2] https://github.com/mmind/linux-riscv/commit/8cef615dab0c00ad68af2651ee5b93d06be17f27#diff-194cb8a86f9fb9b03683295f21c8f46b456a9f94737f01726ddbcbb9e3aace2cR12 > >
