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;
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:18:40 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        Dao Lu <daolu@rivosinc.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] (attempt to) Fix RISC-V toolchain extension support
 detection
Message-ID: <20221017161840.7o5tpsjox7klyvvs@kamzik>
References: <20221006173520.1785507-1-conor@kernel.org>
 <20221017155103.4dt5uzmnlbtibqcn@kamzik>
 <Y0185O1zjyfv7WjN@spud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y0185O1zjyfv7WjN@spud>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 05:03:48PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 05:51:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 06:35:19PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > 
> > However, we could also drop the compiler and linker checking if we
> > converted our use of cbo.* to the insn-def.h framework (I think Heiko once
> > mentioned looking at doing that, but I'm not sure.) I'm looking at adding
> > Zicboz support right now and for starters I've duplicated and modified
> > these checks. But, I think I'll look into defining the instruction type
> > needed for cbo.* and using insn-def instead.
> 
> What is the ETA of your zicboz support? Do you think these patches
> should be applied to v6.1 & backported before being replaced by insn-def
> when your zicboz support arrives? Or just wait for your zicboz series?

I hope to have something posted by the end of this week, so if all things
go well, it could land in 6.1. I think it's reasonable to merge your
patches anyway, though, as they fix the current code and we don't know
what rabbit holes I may fall in with my series yet.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> Trying to decide what status I should set for this in patchwork.
> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.
>