Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Jun 2022 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: cpu.c: remove nonexistent ext from cpuinfo | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
On Wed, 18 May 2022 01:40:18 PDT (-0700), i@zenithal.me wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 06:08:01AM +0800, Hongren (Zenithal) Zheng wrote: >> There are no single-letter B/K/J extentions, >> as they are never ratified. For P, it is still in >> progress and not ratified. >> >> The ordering constraint of these placerholders is now removed >> from the spec. By commit ("Delete more nonexistent >> extensions from the naming constraints") of riscv/riscv-isa-manual > > Hi, is there any further update on this patch?
IIRC there was some debate as to whether that change constituted an incompatible change to the spec, but I guess it's stuck around for long enough that maybe we should count on it being canon now? I added Kito and Nelson, there's a GNU toolchain call tomorrow morning so hopefully we can remember to talk about it...
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Hongren (Zenithal) Zheng <i@zenithal.me> >> --- >> arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 4 +--- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c >> index ccb617791e56..53a061ab0743 100644 >> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c >> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c >> @@ -113,10 +113,8 @@ static void print_isa_ext(struct seq_file *f) >> /* >> * These are the only valid base (single letter) ISA extensions as per the spec. >> * It also specifies the canonical order in which it appears in the spec. >> - * Some of the extension may just be a place holder for now (B, K, P, J). >> - * This should be updated once corresponding extensions are ratified. >> */ >> -static const char base_riscv_exts[13] = "imafdqcbkjpvh"; >> +static const char base_riscv_exts[9] = "imafdqcvh"; > > The base_riscv_exts "imafdqcvh" is exactly the spec now, as > https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/db7a4a0dad0e99d1ec1fc67b582624fc0aeae98e > (Add single-letter "H" extension to the table) > has shown
Oddly enough I stumbled upon that one this morning, it's another one of these like the HPM stuff: we used to say "there's no letter describing the hypervisor behavior, so it's part of the base" (see the commentary on the binutils patch), but now that there's a letter I'm assuming we should split that out?
Not clear if the RISC-V folks want H to be ignored by software like those other recent changes, and if so it's also not clear that's a good idea.
Anyway, sorry this is taking a while but I think it's going to be too late for this merge window -- kind of silly for such a small patch, but it's got interface implications and it's all a bit of a hot topic right now.
> >> >> static void print_isa(struct seq_file *f, const char *isa) >> { >> -- >> 2.35.1 >>
| |