On 6/14/24 04:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 09:36:55AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 03:16:13PM -0400, Jesse Taube wrote:
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
@@ -19,7 +19,8 @@
#define MISALIGNED_BUFFER_ORDER get_order(MISALIGNED_BUFFER_SIZE)
#define MISALIGNED_COPY_SIZE ((MISALIGNED_BUFFER_SIZE / 2) - 0x80)
-DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, misaligned_access_speed);
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, vector_misaligned_access) = RISCV_HWPROBE_VEC_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED;
#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
static cpumask_t fast_misaligned_access;
@@ -268,12 +269,18 @@ static int check_unaligned_access_all_cpus(void)
if (riscv_has_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICCLSM)) {
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_VECTOR_MISALIGNED
+ per_cpu(vector_misaligned_access, cpu) = RISCV_HWPROBE_VEC_MISALIGNED_FAST;
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_MISALIGNED
per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
+#endif
Can you IS_ENABLED()-ify these two as well please?
Ah, you can't cos the variable doesn't exist in the other case.
Yeah kinda just dealing with how it was originally written ideally we
would use IS_ENABLED. I don't really want to have a 500+ diff patch
IS_ENABLED()-ifying the original code as well. I can do that if
necessary though.
Thank,
Jesse Taube
