Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] RISC-V: uapi: add HWCAP for Bitmanip/Scalar Crypto
From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Date: 2022-11-24 17:55:10
Also in:
linux-man, linux-mm, linux-riscv, lkml
On 24/11/2022 17:34, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 05:20:37PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:quoted
On 24/11/2022 17:12, Samuel Ortiz wrote:quoted
[You don't often get email from sameo@rivosinc.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:55:01AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:quoted
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:47:30AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:quoted
Patch #1 is definitely needed regardless of which interface we pick for exposing the ISA strings to userspace.I took another look at #1, and I feel more confused about what constitutes canonical order than I did before! If you know better than I, and you probably do since you're interested in these 6 month old patches, some insight would be appreciated!Assuming we don't go with hwcap, I dont think the order of the riscv_isa_ext_id enum matters that much?The chief put it in canonical order so that's good enough for me!quoted
iiuc we're building the cpuinfo string from the riscv_isa_ext_data array, and I think the current code is incorrect: static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svpbmt, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA("", RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX), }; zicbom and zihintpause should come before supervisor level extensions. I'm going to send a patch for that.idk, Palmer explicitly re-ordered this: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220920204518.10988-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/ (local) By my reading of the isa manual, what Palmer did is correct as those are not "Additional Standard Extensions". /shrugHmm, by their name (Z[a-b]+) they are Additional Standard Extensions. What am I missing?
Right, and this is where I get confused. Zam and Ztso *are* Additional
Standard Extensions, I think we can agree on that one? For those
extensions:
\chapter{``Ztso'' Standard Extension for Total Store Ordering, v0.1}
\chapter{``Zam'' Standard Extension for Misaligned Atomics, v0.1}
They're also called out specifically in the table:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/master/src/naming.tex#L147
For Zihintpause however:
\chapter{``Zihintpause'' Pause Hint, Version 2.0}
See what I mean? I looked at the specs for the bitmanip stuff and for
crypto, which both never mention being standard.
That table has the caption:The table also defines the canonical order in which extension names must appear in the name string, with top-to-bottom in table indicating first-to-last in the name string.
It only calls out Zicsr, Zifencei, Zam and Ztso are being permitted before Sdef, but as I said I am not a specs person, so perhaps some of the extensions in question are intended to go there but have not yet been merged into the isa manual doc. Zihintpause *is* in the isa manual though but not specifically called out. Anyways, hopefully that at least helps with my line of thinking! Conor.