Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject:     Re: [v4 PATCH 8/8] RISC-V: Assign hwcap as per comman capabilities.
In-Reply-To: <20190213084442.GD28278@localhost>
CC:     atish.patra@wdc.com, johan@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, jason@lakedaemon.net, alankao@andestech.com,
        dmitriy@oss-tech.org, schwab@suse.de, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, anup@brainfault.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
To:     johan@kernel.org
Message-ID: <mhng-d7d9894c-d6f6-485b-95e8-962c4ab0f3f1@palmer-si-x1c4>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:44:42 PST (-0800), johan@kernel.org wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:58:10AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
>> On 2/12/19 3:25 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 03:10:12AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
>> >> Currently, we set hwcap based on first valid hart from DT. This may not
>> >> be correct always as that hart might not be current booting cpu or may
>> >> have a different capability.
>> >>
>> >> Set hwcap as the capabilities supported by all possible harts with "okay"
>> >> status.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>   arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> >>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> >> index e7a4701f..a1e4fb34 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> >> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>> >>   #include <linux/of.h>
>> >>   #include <asm/processor.h>
>> >>   #include <asm/hwcap.h>
>> >> +#include <asm/smp.h>
>> >>
>> >>   unsigned long elf_hwcap __read_mostly;
>> >>   #ifdef CONFIG_FPU
>> >> @@ -42,28 +43,30 @@ void riscv_fill_hwcap(void)
>> >>
>> >>   	elf_hwcap = 0;
>> >>
>> >> -	/*
>> >> -	 * We don't support running Linux on hertergenous ISA systems.  For
>> >> -	 * now, we just check the ISA of the first "okay" processor.
>> >> -	 */
>> >>   	for_each_of_cpu_node(node) {
>> >> -		if (riscv_of_processor_hartid(node) >= 0)
>> >> -			break;
>> >> -	}
>> >> -	if (!node) {
>> >> -		pr_warn("Unable to find \"cpu\" devicetree entry\n");
>> >> -		return;
>> >> -	}
>> >> +		unsigned long this_hwcap = 0;
>> >>
>> >> -	if (of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa)) {
>> >> -		pr_warn("Unable to find \"riscv,isa\" devicetree entry\n");
>> >> -		of_node_put(node);
>> >> -		return;
>> >> -	}
>> >> -	of_node_put(node);
>> >> +		if (riscv_of_processor_hartid(node) < 0)
>> >> +			continue;
>> >>
>>
>> >> -	for (i = 0; i < strlen(isa); ++i)
>> >> -		elf_hwcap |= isa2hwcap[(unsigned char)(isa[i])];
>> >> +		if (of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa)) {
>> >> +			pr_warn("Unable to find \"riscv,isa\" devicetree entry\n");
>> >> +			return;
>> >
>> > Did you want "continue" here to continue processing the other harts?
>>
>> Hmm. If a cpu node doesn't have isa in DT, that means DT is wrong. A
>> "continue" here will let user space use other harts just with a warning
>> message?
>>
>> Returning here will not set elf_hwcap which forces the user to fix the
>> DT. I am not sure what should be the defined behavior in this case.
>>
>> Any thoughts ?
>
> The problem is that the proposed code might still set elf_hwcap -- it
> all depends on the order of the hart nodes in dt (i.e. it will only be
> left unset if the first node is malformed).
>
> For that reason, I'd say it's better to either bail out (hard or at
> least with elf_hwcap unset) or to continue processing the other nodes.
>
> The former might break current systems with malformed dt, though.
>
> And since the harts are expected to have the same ISA, continuing the
> processing while warning and ignoring the malformed node might be
> acceptable.

Handling malformed device trees by providing a warning and an empty HWCAP seems 
like the right way to go to me.

>
> Johan