On 30/04/2024 14:12, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:58:11PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote: >> Yeah, see what you mean. I think we also need to define if we want to >> expose all the ISA extensions in /proc/cpuinfo (ie no matter the config >> of the kernel) or not. If so, additional validate() callback would make >> sense. If we want to keep the full ISA string in /proc/info, then we >> will need another way of doing so. > > If extensions aren't usable, they shouldn't be in /proc/cpuinfo either > as there's programs that parse that to figure out what they can use, > possibly even only checking a single cpu and using that as gospel. > That's why there's that per-hart-isa thing that was added by one of your > colleagues last year. Acked. So indeed, validate() callback for F/V dependent extensions makes sense. Clément
