On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 02:35:51PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2024 09:26:56 PDT (-0700), andy.chiu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> > index 969ef3d59dbe..35390b4a5a17 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> > @@ -114,6 +114,11 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
> > EXT_KEY(ZIHINTPAUSE);
> >
> > if (has_vector()) {
> > + EXT_KEY(ZVE32X);
> > + EXT_KEY(ZVE32F);
> > + EXT_KEY(ZVE64X);
> > + EXT_KEY(ZVE64F);
> > + EXT_KEY(ZVE64D);
> > EXT_KEY(ZVBB);
> > EXT_KEY(ZVBC);
> > EXT_KEY(ZVKB);
>
> Conor left a comment over here <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240510-zve-detection-v5-6-0711bdd26c12@xxxxxxxxxx/>.
This link is to the patch you're replying to, not anything from me.
I commented on a bunch of stuff in v4, but not this patch - generally I
ignore hwprobe to be honest...
> I think the best bet is to just merge this v5 on for-next now, though --
> there's a bunch of patch sets touching ISA string parsing and IIUC that
> sub-extension parsing stuff is a pre-existing issue, and Clement's patch set
> still has some outstanding feedback to address.
>
> So I think if we just go with this we're not regressing anything, we just
> have a bit more to clean up. Maybe it's a little uglier now that userspace
> can see the sub-extensions, but I'd bet wacky ISA strings will be able to
> confuse us for a while.
I wanna do some cleanup stuff w/ Clements series applied, if that's what
you were talking about, but I don't see much point starting that until
the cpufeature stuff has calmed down - Charlie's and Clement's series
really need to be in for-next for it to be worth doing.
> I staged this so I can throw it at the tester, LMK if anyone has issues
> otherwise it'll show up on for-next.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
