On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 05:24:25PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:00:12PM +0800, Andy Chiu wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 2:21 AM Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > + if (elf_hwcap & COMPAT_HWCAP_ISA_V && has_riscv_homogeneous_vlenb() < 0) {
> > > > + pr_warn("Unsupported heterogeneous vlen detected, vector extension disabled.\
> > > > + elf_hwcap &= ~COMPAT_HWCAP_ISA_V;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > We only touch COMPAT_HWCAP_ISA_V and the failed case only turns off the
> > > rectified V. So here we have nothing to do with the Xtheadvector.
> >
> > There's nothing t-head related in the tree at this point, so doing
> > anything with it would cause build issues.
> >
> > > However, I am still confused because I think Xtheadvector would also
> > > need to call into this check, so as to setup vlenb.
> >
> >
> > > Apart from that, it seems like some vendor stating Xtheadvector is
> > > actually vector-0.7.
> >
> > The T-Head implementation is 0.7.x, but I am not really sure what you
> > mean by this comment.
>
> Andy, the idea of this patch was to be able to support this binding on
> more than just xtheadvector.
>
> You are correct though Andy, this is a problem that a later patch in
> this series doesn't disable xtheadvector when vlenb is not homogeneous.
> I am going to wait to send out any more versions until after this merge
> window but I will fix this in the next version. Thank you!
Agreed on all counts :)
> > > Please correct me if I speak anything wrong. One
> > > thing I noticed is that Xtheadvector wouldn't trap on reading
> > > th.vlenb but vector-0.7 would. If that is the case, should we require
> > > Xtheadvector to specify `riscv,vlenb` on the device tree?
> >
> > In the world of Linux, "vector-0.7" isn't a thing. There's only 1.0, and
> > after this patchset, "xtheadvector". My understanding, from discussion
> > on earlier versions of this series the trap is actually accessing
> > th.vlenb register, despite the documentation stating that it is
> > unprivileged:
> > https://github.com/T-head-Semi/thead-extension-spec/blob/master/xtheadvector.adoc
> > I assume Charlie tried it but was trapping, as v1 had a comment:
> > + * Although xtheadvector states that th.vlenb exists and
> > + * overlaps with the vector 1.0 extension overlaps, an illegal
> > + * instruction is raised if read. These systems all currently
> > + * have a fixed vector length of 128, so hardcode that value.
>
> On my board with a c906 attempting to read th.vlenb (which is supposed
> to have the same encoding as vlenb) raises an illegal instruction
> exception from S-mode even though the documentation states that it
> shouldn't. Because the documentation states that vlenb is available, I
> haven't made it required for xtheadvector, I am not sure the proper
> solution for that.
Would you mind raising an issue on the T-Head extension spec repo about
this?
Thanks,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
