On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 05:46:42PM +0800, Yu-Chien Peter Lin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 05:31:01PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 11:11:55AM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
Hi Conor, Charlie,
On 2024-07-01 11:07 AM, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:27:01AM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
On 2024-06-19 6:57 PM, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1s.dtsi b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1s.dtsi index 64c3c2e6cbe0..6367112e614a 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1s.dtsi +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1s.dtsi @@ -27,7 +27,8 @@ cpu0: cpu@0 { riscv,isa = "rv64imafdc";
The ISA string should be updated to keep it in sync with riscv,isa-extensions.
This probably looks like this cos I said that the kernel shouldn't parse vendor extensions from "riscv,isa". My rationale was that we have basically no control of what a vendor extension means in riscv,isa so we shouldn't parse them from it (so marginally worse than standard extensions, where it means what the spec says except when it doesn't).
Given how we implement the parsing, it also meant we weren't implying meanings for vendor extensions ACPI-land, where we also can't ensure the meanings or that they remain stable. That change is in a different series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20240609-support_vend...
Although now that I think about it, this might break xandespmu... I dunno if the Andes guys switched over to using the new property outside of the single dts in the kernel tree using their SoC. We could potentially special-case that extension if they haven't - but my position on this mostly is that if you want to use vendor extensions you should not be using riscv,isa (even if the regex doesn't complain if you add them). I'd like to leave the code in the other patch as-is if we can help it.
I added Yu Chien Peter Lin here, maybe they can let us know what they're doing.
OK, that makes sense to me. Then please ignore my original comment.
Should the xandespmu thing be an issue, I'd suggest we just do something like the following, in place of the new switch arm added by Charlie:
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c index ec4bff7a827c..bb99b4055ec2 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c @@ -628,6 +628,17 @@ static void __init riscv_parse_isa_string(const char *isa, unsigned long *bitmap if (unlikely(ext_err)) continue;
if (*ext == 'x' && acpi_disabled) {/** xandespmu predates this "rule", so special case it for* hysterical raisins*/if (strncasecmp(ext, "xandespmu", ext_end - ext)) {pr_warn_once("Vendor extensions are ignored in riscv,isa. Use riscv,isa-extensions instead.");break;}}- match_isa_ext(ext, ext_end, bitmap); }
}
Thanks for the hands-up! We don't use the deprecated riscv,isa to specify xandespmu, so no need to address this special case.
Great, that's good to know - thanks!