On Wed, 22 May 2024 00:20:09 PDT (-0700), cleger@rivosinc.com wrote:
On 21/05/2024 21:49, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 04:52:48PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
+static int riscv_ext_zca_depends(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)+{
- return __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) ? 0 : -EPROBE_DEFER;
+} +static int riscv_ext_zcd_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)+{
- return __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) &&
__riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_d) ? 0 : -EPROBE_DEFER;+}
Could you write the logic in these out normally please? I think they'd be more understandable (particular this second one) broken down and with early return.
Yes sure. I'll probably make the same thing for zcf_validate as well as removing the #ifdef and using IS_ENABLED():
static int riscv_ext_zcf_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data, const unsigned long *isa_bitmap) { if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) return -EINVAL;
if (__riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) && __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_f)) return 0;
return -EPROBE_DEFER; }
Are you going to send a v6 (sorry if I missed it, I'm trying to untangle all these ISA parsing patch sets).
Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
Cheers, Conor.