On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 09:25:25AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:48:09AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 02:56:30PM +0800, Andy Chiu wrote:
> > > Hi Conor,
> > >
> > > Should we check if "v" presents for vector crypto extensions in
> > > riscv_isa_extension_check()? We are not checking this for now. So a
> > > kernel compiled with RISCV_ISA_V still has a problem if its isa-string
> > > includes any of vector crypto ("zvbb, zvkg, etc") but not "v".
> >
> >
> > Yeah, one of the things I took away from this discussion is that we need
> > to improve the implementation of both the methods we have at the moment
> > for drivers etc to check if extensions are present and usable.
> > In general, I don't think checks like that are "safe" to do in
> > riscv_isa_extension_check(), because the dependencies may not all have
> > been resolved when we probe an extension (Clement's current Zca etc
> > series improves the situation though by only calling the checks after
> > we probe all extensions).
> >
> > The simple V cases are all fine though - the DT binding and ACPI rules
> > for compatible strings all mandate that single-letter extensions must
> > come before multi-letter ones. For riscv,isa-extensions we control the
> > probe ordering and probe V before any multi-letter stuff. Additionally,
> > we should make it a requirement for V to be present if things that
> > depend on it are.
> >
> > That said, is it permitted by the specs to have any of the extensions
> > you mention without the full V extension, but with one of the cut-down
> > variants you mention here? If not, I'd be more interested in figuring
> > out the non-extension dependencies: whether or not the kernel itself
> > supports vector and if the kernel has opted to disable vector due to
> > detecting that harts have mismatching vector lengths.
> >
> > TL;DR: I think we should add some checks in riscv_isa_extension_check().
>
> Also, unless this only becomes a problem with this series that adds the
> cut-down forms of vector, I think this is a separate problem to solve
> and I can send some patches for it (along with some other cleanup I'd like
> to do as a result of Eric's comments) and you can just submit the v2 you
> were planning to without it. I can't, off the top of my head, think of
> why this particular series would break the vector crypto stuff though,
> the problems with enabling extensions seem underlying.
Here's something buggy that I chucked together as an idea of what I
meant:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/commit/?h=riscv-check_vector
Beware, it is entirely untested :)
It's based on both this series and patches 2 & 3 of Charlie's series doing
the T-Head vector stuff. It really needs Clement's extension_check()
rework that I mentioned 2 mails ago to function correctly for any of these
vector subsets. Without Clement's stuff, it'll have "random" behaviour
depending on probe order for riscv,isa and a determinate, but incorrect,
behaviour otherwise.
Cheers,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
