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;
}
>
> Otherwise,
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
> Conor.
