On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 1:07 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 06:40:51 PDT (-0700), Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:06:08PM -0700, Evan Green wrote: > >> Add two new bits to the IMA_EXT_0 key for ZBA and ZBB extensions. These > >> are accurately reported per CPU. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst | 7 +++++ > >> arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h | 2 ++ > >> arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > >> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst > >> index 9f0dd62dcb5d..21f444a38359 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst > >> +++ b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst > >> @@ -64,6 +64,13 @@ The following keys are defined: > >> * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C`: The C extension is supported, as defined > >> by version 2.2 of the RISC-V ISA manual. > >> > >> + * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA`: The Zba address generation extension is > >> + supported, as defined in version 1.0 of the Bit-Manipulation ISA > >> + extensions. > >> + > >> + * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_ZBB`: The Zbb extension is supporte, as defined > > > > Why is one EXT_ZBA and the other is IMA_ZBB? You do not use IMA below, > > so I assume this is a copy-paste mistake. > > Looks like it. Either way this was too late for the current merge > window, so no big deal. Copypasta! I'll fix it. -Evan