On Nov 29, 2023, at 04:12, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:54:49PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> +static inline bool check_aes_ext(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZVKNED) &&
>>> + riscv_vector_vlen() >= 128;
>>> +}
>>
>> I'm not keen on this construct, where you are checking vlen greater than
>> 128 and the presence of Zvkned without checking for the presence of V
>> itself. Can you use "has_vector()" in any places where you depend on the
>> presence of vector please?
>
> Shouldn't both of those things imply vector support already?
The vector crypto extensions imply `V` extension. Should we still need to check
the `V` explicitly?
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/blob/main/doc/vector/riscv-crypto-spec-vector.adoc#1-extensions-overview
>> Also, there are potentially a lot of places in this drivers where you
>> can replace "riscv_isa_extension_available()" with
>> "riscv_has_extension_likely()". The latter is optimised with
>> alternatives, so in places that are going to be evaluated frequently it
>> may be beneficial for you.
>
> These extension checks are only executed in module_init functions, so they're
> not performance critical.
All `riscv_isa_extension_available()` calls in crypto drivers are called once
in the module init calls. Should we still need that `riscv_has_extension_likely()`
with a little more code size?
> - Eric
