On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:35 AM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:11:20PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > > Ensure that hwprobe does not flag "v" when xtheadvector is present. > > > > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c > > index 8cae41a502dd..e0a42c851511 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c > > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, > > if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)) > > pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C; > > > > - if (has_vector()) > > + if (has_vector() && !riscv_has_vendor_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_VENDOR_EXT_XTHEADVECTOR)) > > Hmm, I think this is "dangerous". has_vector() is used across the kernel > now in several places for the in-kernel vector. I don't think that > has_vector() should return true for the T-Head stuff given that & > has_vector() should represent the ratified spec. I'll have to think > about this one and how nasty this makes any of the save/restore code > etc. Yeah, my nose crinkled here as well. If you're having to do a vendorish thing in this generic spot, then others may too, suggesting perhaps this isn't the cleanest way to go about it. Ideally extensions are all additive, rather than subtractive, I guess? > > > pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_V; > > > > /* > > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, > > EXT_KEY(ZACAS); > > EXT_KEY(ZICOND); > > > > - if (has_vector()) { > > + if (has_vector() && !riscv_has_vendor_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_VENDOR_EXT_XTHEADVECTOR)) { > > EXT_KEY(ZVBB); > > EXT_KEY(ZVBC); > > EXT_KEY(ZVKB); > > > > -- > > 2.44.0 > >