Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>
To:     ajones@ventanamicro.com, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com
Cc:     paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, guoren@kernel.org, apatel@ventanamicro.com,
        atishp@rivosinc.com, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] riscv: cleanup svpbmt cpufeature probing
Date:   Fri, 02 Sep 2022 17:34:30 +0200
Message-ID: <21316074.0c2gjJ1VT2@diego>
In-Reply-To: <464dbc2b-e281-f9ad-f8c7-ba66e8247432@microchip.com>
References: <20220901222744.2210215-1-heiko@sntech.de> <2910587.GUh0CODmnK@diego> <464dbc2b-e281-f9ad-f8c7-ba66e8247432@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk

Am Freitag, 2. September 2022, 17:26:21 CEST schrieb Conor.Dooley@microchip.com:
> On 02/09/2022 16:12, Heiko St?bner wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > Am Freitag, 2. September 2022, 11:49:39 CEST schrieb Andrew Jones:
> >> Hi Heiko,
> >>
> >> Please use a cover-letter for a patch series. They allow the series to be
> >> threaded better and people can reply to the cover-letter with series-wide
> >> comments. For example, I'd like to reply to a cover-letter now with
> >>
> >> For the series
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
> >>
> >> but now it looks like I need to go back and reply to each patch
> >> separately.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if tooling like b4 can handle Reviewed-by's in cover-letters.
> 
> Yup, it can! At least `b4 {am,shazam} -t` will.
> I am not sure if the new `b4 trailers` does.

That is great to know ... gotta love b4 :-)


> 
> > At least some time back it couldn't, so am not sure if that was added
> > meanwhile. So tags added to cover-letters might even get lost.
> > 
> > But I'll add a cover-letter nevertheless - need a place for the v2 changelog
> > anyway :-)
> > 
> > Heiko
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> drew
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 12:27:41AM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >>> This can also do without the ifdef and use IS_ENABLED instead and
> >>> for better readability, getting rid of that switch also seems
> >>> waranted.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 13 +++++--------
> >>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>> index 553d755483ed..764ea220161f 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>> @@ -253,16 +253,13 @@ void __init riscv_fill_hwcap(void)
> >>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ALTERNATIVE
> >>>  static bool __init_or_module cpufeature_probe_svpbmt(unsigned int stage)
> >>>  {
> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_SVPBMT
> >>> -   switch (stage) {
> >>> -   case RISCV_ALTERNATIVES_EARLY_BOOT:
> >>> +   if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_SVPBMT))
> >>>             return false;
> >>> -   default:
> >>> -           return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, SVPBMT);
> >>> -   }
> >>> -#endif
> >>>
> >>> -   return false;
> >>> +   if (stage == RISCV_ALTERNATIVES_EARLY_BOOT)
> >>> +           return false;
> >>> +
> >>> +   return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, SVPBMT);
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>>  static bool __init_or_module cpufeature_probe_zicbom(unsigned int stage)
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>