Re: [PATCH v5 08/16] riscv: add ISA parsing for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb

[Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.