On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:35 AM Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:11:20PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
Ensure that hwprobe does not flag "v" when xtheadvector is present.
Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins charlie@rivosinc.com
arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c index 8cae41a502dd..e0a42c851511 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)) pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
if (has_vector())
if (has_vector() && !riscv_has_vendor_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_VENDOR_EXT_XTHEADVECTOR))Hmm, I think this is "dangerous". has_vector() is used across the kernel now in several places for the in-kernel vector. I don't think that has_vector() should return true for the T-Head stuff given that & has_vector() should represent the ratified spec. I'll have to think about this one and how nasty this makes any of the save/restore code etc.
Yeah, my nose crinkled here as well. If you're having to do a vendorish thing in this generic spot, then others may too, suggesting perhaps this isn't the cleanest way to go about it. Ideally extensions are all additive, rather than subtractive, I guess?
pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_V; /*@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, EXT_KEY(ZACAS); EXT_KEY(ZICOND);
if (has_vector()) {
if (has_vector() && !riscv_has_vendor_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_VENDOR_EXT_XTHEADVECTOR)) { EXT_KEY(ZVBB); EXT_KEY(ZVBC); EXT_KEY(ZVKB);-- 2.44.0