Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:54:55 +0800 | From | Hongren Zheng <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: cpu.c: remove nonexistent ext from cpuinfo |
| |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 02:20:57AM +0800, Hongren Zheng wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 08:52:42PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > 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... > > Hi, I'm curious about the output of the meeting, any update on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > I'm afraid I could not help here because I'm not familiar with this area. > > > > > 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.
This PATCH still applies. Might there be some update? Can we safely pick this PATCH?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > static void print_isa(struct seq_file *f, const char *isa) > > > > { > > > > -- > > > > 2.35.1 > > > >
| |