On 30/05/2024 23:13, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> 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).
Yes, I was waiting for more feedback/Rb by it seems like I now have
everything I need. I'll send that.
Thanks,
Clément
>
>>
>>>
>>> Otherwise,
>>> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Conor.
