From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I don't know for sure that I have not re-ordered something that is
sacrosanct. It seems that all of these are internal use structs, and
should be okay, barring the obvious exception of the, intentionally
re-ordered, isa_ext_arr.
With that caveat out of the way - all I did here was try to make things
consistent so that it'd be easier to point patch submitters at a "do
this order please".
I never know which of these can be moved without breaking stuff - but
they all seem to be internal use stuff since they're not in uapi?
For v2, I added another path with some uapi docs & switched to Drew's
suggested ordering of alphabetically, except in the /proc/cpuinfo array,
as per the discussion today in the pw-sync call. I also added a
sprinkling of comments around which things should be sorted in which
way.
I guess consider this an RFS, with the S being Screaming in the case of
me doing something you abhor :)
Thanks,
Conor.
CC: ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: conor@xxxxxxxxxx
CC: conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: corbet@xxxxxxx
CC: guoren@xxxxxxxxxx
CC: heiko@xxxxxxxxx
CC: palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx
CC: paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx
CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Conor Dooley (3):
RISC-V: clarify ISA string ordering rules in cpu.c
RISC-V: resort all extensions in consistent orders
Documentation: riscv: add a section about ISA string ordering in
/proc/cpuinfo
Documentation/riscv/uabi.rst | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 12 ++++----
arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 6 ++--
4 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
--
2.38.1
