On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:00:27PM -0700, Ron Economos wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 3/27/24 7:40 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 08:05:30AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On 05/03/2024 07:44, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > > > > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > > > > > > > riscv: Add a custom ISA extension for the [ms]envcfg CSR > > > > > > > > to the 6.7-stable tree which can be found at: > > > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > > > > > > > The filename of the patch is: > > > > riscv-add-a-custom-isa-extension-for-the-envcfg-csr.patch > > > > and it can be found in the queue-6.7 subdirectory. > > > > > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > > > > please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > From 4774848fef6041716a4883217eb75f6b10eb183b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:55:34 -0800 > > > > Subject: riscv: Add a custom ISA extension for the [ms]envcfg CSR > > > > > > > > From: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > commit 4774848fef6041716a4883217eb75f6b10eb183b upstream. > > > > > > > > The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged > > > > ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several > > > > other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular > > > > version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may > > > > prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a > > > > result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine > > > > if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other > > > > extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the > > > > CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the > > > > absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that > > > > address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension. > > > > > > > > Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of > > > > the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them > > > > wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA > > > > extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that > > > > the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one > > > > of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg. > > > > > > > > This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA > > > > string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other > > > > standard extension. > > > > > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v6.7+ > > > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240228065559.3434837-3-samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Ron Economos <re@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 2 ++ > > > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h > > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h > > > > @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ > > > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMSTATEEN 43 > > > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND 44 > > > > > > > > +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG 127 > > > > + > > > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX 64 > > > These defines here need to be lower than RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX. > > > I think adjusting the value of XLINUXENVCFG to 63 will > > > suffice here, the max got bumped to 128 in 6.8. > > Can you send a patch for this? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > This patch was subsequently reverted, so there's nothing to do here. The former might be true, but I don't think the latter is, the patch was CCed to stable for a reason. I'll add it to my todo list Greg, but no promises for when I will actually get around to it. It's not my patch so I don't have a usecase that needs this or w/e. Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
