On Wed, 22 May 2024 00:20:09 PDT (-0700), cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 21/05/2024 21:49, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 04:52:48PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
+static int riscv_ext_zca_depends(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
+ const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
+{
+ return __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) ? 0 : -EPROBE_DEFER;
+}
+static int riscv_ext_zcd_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
+ const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
+{
+ return __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) &&
+ __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_d) ? 0 : -EPROBE_DEFER;
+}
Could you write the logic in these out normally please? I think they'd
be more understandable (particular this second one) broken down and with
early return.
Yes sure. I'll probably make the same thing for zcf_validate as well as
removing the #ifdef and using IS_ENABLED():
static int riscv_ext_zcf_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
{
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT))
return -EINVAL;
if (__riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) &&
__riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_f))
return 0;
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}
Are you going to send a v6 (sorry if I missed it, I'm trying to untangle
all these ISA parsing patch sets).
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers,
Conor.
