From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
When filling hwcap the kernel already expects the isa string to start with
rv32 if CONFIG_32BIT and rv64 if CONFIG_64BIT.
So when recreating the runtime isa-string we can also just go the other way
to get the correct starting point for it.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
Co-developed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 16 ++++++++--------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
index a2fc952318e9..742bb42e7e86 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -253,13 +253,16 @@ static void print_isa_ext(struct seq_file *f)
*/
static const char base_riscv_exts[13] = "imafdqcbkjpvh";
-static void print_isa(struct seq_file *f, const char *isa)
+static void print_isa(struct seq_file *f)
{
int i;
seq_puts(f, "isa\t\t: ");
- /* Print the rv[64/32] part */
- seq_write(f, isa, 4);
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_32BIT))
+ seq_write(f, "rv32", 4);
+ else
+ seq_write(f, "rv64", 4);
+
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(base_riscv_exts); i++) {
if (__riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, base_riscv_exts[i] - 'a'))
/* Print only enabled the base ISA extensions */
@@ -316,15 +319,14 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
unsigned long cpu_id = (unsigned long)v - 1;
struct riscv_cpuinfo *ci = per_cpu_ptr(&riscv_cpuinfo, cpu_id);
struct device_node *node;
- const char *compat, *isa;
+ const char *compat;
seq_printf(m, "processor\t: %lu\n", cpu_id);
seq_printf(m, "hart\t\t: %lu\n", cpuid_to_hartid_map(cpu_id));
+ print_isa(m);
if (acpi_disabled) {
node = of_get_cpu_node(cpu_id, NULL);
- if (!of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa))
- print_isa(m, isa);
print_mmu(m);
if (!of_property_read_string(node, "compatible", &compat) &&
@@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
of_node_put(node);
} else {
- if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
- print_isa(m, isa);
print_mmu(m);
}
--
2.40.1
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
>
> When filling hwcap the kernel already expects the isa string to start with
> rv32 if CONFIG_32BIT and rv64 if CONFIG_64BIT.
>
> So when recreating the runtime isa-string we can also just go the other way
> to get the correct starting point for it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> Co-developed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> index a2fc952318e9..742bb42e7e86 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -253,13 +253,16 @@ static void print_isa_ext(struct seq_file *f)
> */
> static const char base_riscv_exts[13] = "imafdqcbkjpvh";
>
> -static void print_isa(struct seq_file *f, const char *isa)
> +static void print_isa(struct seq_file *f)
> {
> int i;
>
> seq_puts(f, "isa\t\t: ");
> - /* Print the rv[64/32] part */
> - seq_write(f, isa, 4);
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_32BIT))
> + seq_write(f, "rv32", 4);
> + else
> + seq_write(f, "rv64", 4);
> +
> for (i = 0; i < sizeof(base_riscv_exts); i++) {
> if (__riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, base_riscv_exts[i] - 'a'))
> /* Print only enabled the base ISA extensions */
> @@ -316,15 +319,14 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> unsigned long cpu_id = (unsigned long)v - 1;
> struct riscv_cpuinfo *ci = per_cpu_ptr(&riscv_cpuinfo, cpu_id);
> struct device_node *node;
> - const char *compat, *isa;
> + const char *compat;
>
> seq_printf(m, "processor\t: %lu\n", cpu_id);
> seq_printf(m, "hart\t\t: %lu\n", cpuid_to_hartid_map(cpu_id));
> + print_isa(m);
>
> if (acpi_disabled) {
> node = of_get_cpu_node(cpu_id, NULL);
> - if (!of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa))
> - print_isa(m, isa);
>
> print_mmu(m);
> if (!of_property_read_string(node, "compatible", &compat) &&
> @@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>
> of_node_put(node);
> } else {
> - if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
> - print_isa(m, isa);
>
Extra blank line here to remove. Actually the whole 'else' can be removed
because the print_mmu() call can be brought up above the
'if (acpi_disabled)'
> print_mmu(m);
> }
> --
> 2.40.1
>
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
Thanks,
drew
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> > @@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >
> > of_node_put(node);
> > } else {
> > - if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
> > - print_isa(m, isa);
> >
>
> Extra blank line here to remove. Actually the whole 'else' can be removed
> because the print_mmu() call can be brought up above the
> 'if (acpi_disabled)'
Can it be? I intentionally did not make that change - wasn't sure
whether re-ordering the fields in there was permissible.
One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
vendor/uarch ordering.
Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
sympathy for naively parsing it.
> > print_mmu(m);
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> > > @@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > >
> > > of_node_put(node);
> > > } else {
> > > - if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
> > > - print_isa(m, isa);
> > >
> >
> > Extra blank line here to remove. Actually the whole 'else' can be removed
> > because the print_mmu() call can be brought up above the
> > 'if (acpi_disabled)'
>
> Can it be? I intentionally did not make that change - wasn't sure
> whether re-ordering the fields in there was permissible.
I agree we shouldn't change the order, but moving print_mmu() up won't,
afaict.
>
> One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
> https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
> and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
> vendor/uarch ordering.
>
> Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
> fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
> not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
> sympathy for naively parsing it.
Yes, it would be nice for ACPI to be consistent. I'm not sure what can be
done about that.
Thanks,
drew
>
> > > print_mmu(m);
>
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:05:40PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> > > > @@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > >
> > > > of_node_put(node);
> > > > } else {
> > > > - if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
> > > > - print_isa(m, isa);
> > > >
> > >
> > > Extra blank line here to remove. Actually the whole 'else' can be removed
> > > because the print_mmu() call can be brought up above the
> > > 'if (acpi_disabled)'
> >
> > Can it be? I intentionally did not make that change - wasn't sure
> > whether re-ordering the fields in there was permissible.
>
> I agree we shouldn't change the order, but moving print_mmu() up won't,
> afaict.
D'oh, I'm an eejit. Sure, I'll do that for v2. Thanks!
> > One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
> > https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
> > and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
> > vendor/uarch ordering.
> >
> > Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
> > fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
> > not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
> > sympathy for naively parsing it.
>
> Yes, it would be nice for ACPI to be consistent. I'm not sure what can be
> done about that.
Print "unknown", until there's a way of passing the info?
Speaking of being an eejit, adding new fields to the file would probably
break some really naive parsers & quite frankly that sort of thing can
keep the pieces IMO. Ditto if adding more extensions breaks someone that
expects _zicbom_zicboz that breaks when _zicbop is slid into the middle.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:16:09PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:05:40PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> > > > > @@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > >
> > > > > of_node_put(node);
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > - if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
> > > > > - print_isa(m, isa);
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Extra blank line here to remove. Actually the whole 'else' can be removed
> > > > because the print_mmu() call can be brought up above the
> > > > 'if (acpi_disabled)'
> > >
> > > Can it be? I intentionally did not make that change - wasn't sure
> > > whether re-ordering the fields in there was permissible.
> >
> > I agree we shouldn't change the order, but moving print_mmu() up won't,
> > afaict.
>
> D'oh, I'm an eejit. Sure, I'll do that for v2. Thanks!
>
> > > One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
> > > https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
> > > and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
> > > vendor/uarch ordering.
> > >
> > > Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
> > > fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
> > > not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
> > > sympathy for naively parsing it.
> >
> > Yes, it would be nice for ACPI to be consistent. I'm not sure what can be
> > done about that.
>
> Print "unknown", until there's a way of passing the info?
> Speaking of being an eejit, adding new fields to the file would probably
> break some really naive parsers & quite frankly that sort of thing can
> keep the pieces IMO. Ditto if adding more extensions breaks someone that
> expects _zicbom_zicboz that breaks when _zicbop is slid into the middle.
Hi Conor,
Instead of unknown, could you print "risc-v" or "riscv"? There is nothing
equivalent to compatible property in ACPI. Using mvendorid,
marchid and mimpid, people can determine the exact processor
<manufacturer>,<model>.
Thanks!
Sunil
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:23PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:16:09PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:05:40PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
> > > > https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
> > > > and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
> > > > vendor/uarch ordering.
> > > >
> > > > Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
> > > > fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
> > > > not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
> > > > sympathy for naively parsing it.
> > >
> > > Yes, it would be nice for ACPI to be consistent. I'm not sure what can be
> > > done about that.
> >
> > Print "unknown", until there's a way of passing the info?
> > Speaking of being an eejit, adding new fields to the file would probably
> > break some really naive parsers & quite frankly that sort of thing can
> > keep the pieces IMO. Ditto if adding more extensions breaks someone that
> > expects _zicbom_zicboz that breaks when _zicbop is slid into the middle.
> Instead of unknown, could you print "risc-v" or "riscv"?
I don't really see how that is better. "riscv" is not the uarch or
vendor. If we don't know, we should either say we don't know or omit the
field IMO.
Cheers,
Conor.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:23PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:16:09PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:05:40PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>
> > > > > One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
> > > > > https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
> > > > > and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
> > > > > vendor/uarch ordering.
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
> > > > > fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
> > > > > not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
> > > > > sympathy for naively parsing it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it would be nice for ACPI to be consistent. I'm not sure what can be
> > > > done about that.
> > >
> > > Print "unknown", until there's a way of passing the info?
> > > Speaking of being an eejit, adding new fields to the file would probably
> > > break some really naive parsers & quite frankly that sort of thing can
> > > keep the pieces IMO. Ditto if adding more extensions breaks someone that
> > > expects _zicbom_zicboz that breaks when _zicbop is slid into the middle.
>
> > Instead of unknown, could you print "risc-v" or "riscv"?
>
> I don't really see how that is better. "riscv" is not the uarch or
> vendor. If we don't know, we should either say we don't know or omit the
> field IMO.
>
Okay. Makes sense. In that case, I prefer to skip.
uarch is anyway printed using other ways. Even in DT, this is not
printed for generic cpus having compatible string riscv. So, consumers
should expect it not being printed.
Thanks,
Sunil