On 24/11/2022 17:12, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > [You don't often get email from sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:55:01AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:47:30AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: >> >>> Patch #1 is definitely needed regardless of which interface we pick for >>> exposing the ISA strings to userspace. >> >> I took another look at #1, and I feel more confused about what >> constitutes canonical order than I did before! If you know better than >> I, and you probably do since you're interested in these 6 month old >> patches, some insight would be appreciated! > > Assuming we don't go with hwcap, I dont think the order of the > riscv_isa_ext_id enum matters that much? The chief put it in canonical order so that's good enough for me! > > iiuc we're building the cpuinfo string from the riscv_isa_ext_data > array, and I think the current code is incorrect: > > static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svpbmt, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA("", RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX), > }; > > zicbom and zihintpause should come before supervisor level extensions. > I'm going to send a patch for that. idk, Palmer explicitly re-ordered this: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220920204518.10988-1-palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ By my reading of the isa manual, what Palmer did is correct as those are not "Additional Standard Extensions". /shrug > > And the Zb/Zk ones should come after the Zi ones, and before the > supervisor level ones (The I category comes before the B or the K one). This I agree with though.
