Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:32:41 -0700 | From | Deepak Gupta <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 07/10] riscv: add ISA extension parsing for Zcmop |
| |
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: >On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:32:41PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:11:00AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote: >> > > Add parsing for Zcmop ISA extension which was ratified in commit >> > > b854a709c00 ("Zcmop is ratified/1.0") of the riscv-isa-manual. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@rivosinc.com> >> > > --- >> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 1 + >> > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 + >> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h >> > > index b7551bad341b..cff7660de268 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h >> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h >> > > @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ >> > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCB 77 >> > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCD 78 >> > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCF 79 >> > > +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCMOP 80 >> > > >> > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG 127 >> > > >> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c >> > > index 09dee071274d..f1450cd7231e 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c >> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c >> > > @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = { >> > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCB), >> > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcd, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCD), >> > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCF), >> > > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcmop, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCMOP), >> > >> > As per spec zcmop is dependent on zca. So perhaps below ? >> > >> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCMOP, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) >> >> What's zicboz got to do with it, copy-pasto I guess?
Yes, copy-pasta :-)
>> If we're gonna imply stuff like this though I think we need some >> comments explaining why it's okay. > >Also, I'm inclined to call that out specifically in the binding, I've >not yet checked if dependencies actually work for elements of a string >array like the do for individual properties. I'll todo list that..
Earlier examples of specifying dependency on envcfg actually had functional use case. So you are right, I am not sure if its actually needed in this particular case.
And yes definitley, dependency should be mentioned in binding.
| |