2022-07-22 02:24:21

by Palmer Dabbelt

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] riscv: Add macro for multiple nop instructions

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 07:30:57 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
> Some cases need multiple nop instructions and arm64 already has a
> nice helper for not needing to write all of them out but instead
> use a helper to add n nops.
>
> So add a similar thing to riscv and convert the T-Head PMA
> alternative to use it.
>
>
> Heiko Stuebner (2):
> riscv: introduce nops and __nops macros for NOP sequences
> riscv: convert the t-head pbmt errata to use the __nops macro
>
> arch/riscv/include/asm/asm.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h | 2 ++
> arch/riscv/include/asm/errata_list.h | 8 +-------
> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Thanks, these are on for-next. I had to fix up some minor conflicts, but
hopefuly nothing went wrong.


2022-07-24 17:26:24

by Samuel Holland

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] riscv: Add macro for multiple nop instructions

Hi Palmer,

On 7/21/22 9:16 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 07:30:57 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
>> Some cases need multiple nop instructions and arm64 already has a
>> nice helper for not needing to write all of them out but instead
>> use a helper to add n nops.
>>
>> So add a similar thing to riscv and convert the T-Head PMA
>> alternative to use it.
>>
>>
>> Heiko Stuebner (2):
>>   riscv: introduce nops and __nops macros for NOP sequences
>>   riscv: convert the t-head pbmt errata to use the __nops macro
>>
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/asm.h         | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h     |  2 ++
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/errata_list.h |  8 +-------
>>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks, these are on for-next.  I had to fix up some minor conflicts, but
> hopefuly nothing went wrong.

The conflicts are because the patch was sent on top of fixes, specifically
e83031564137 ("riscv: Fix ALT_THEAD_PMA's asm parameters"). Since you applied
this patch without pulling fixes in to for-next, now for-next conflicts with master.

Regards,
Samuel